Leo Allatius’s More Extensive Notes and Collectanea on the Hexaemeron of Eustathius of Antioch

^A a cave, commanded that they be cast face down upon the ground, and having made them be trampled by the people upon their necks, he slew them; and having hung their bodies upon a tree, afterwards he buried them in the cave. And having sacked all their cities, he subdued all the mountainous and the level country.

Asor, the king Jabin, having taken the surrounding kings as allies, gathered a great force, so that the multitude of their army might be likened to the uncountable sand of the sea, and he arrayed himself against Jesus. But Jesus, falling upon them suddenly, slaughtered both him and all his allies with their whole army, and he hamstrung their horses, and distributed all their land to the Israelites. To the tribe of Reuben he appointed the land of the Amorites and Raphasen, and to Gad the same land of the Amorites, and he assigned half ^B to the tribe of Manasseh, and to the tribe of Judah the land of the Hebrews, and the Hittites, and the Enakim. That is, the tribe of Judah, having taken the tribe of Simeon as an ally, sacked the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and having caught Adonibezek as he was fleeing, they mutilated his feet and his hands; and he, lamenting himself, said: "As I have done, so God has repaid me. For seventy kings, the extremities of their feet and hands cut off, were under my table gathering the things that fell." Having been brought therefore to Jerusalem, he immediately died. To the tribe of Ephraim, Jesus assigned the land of the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Samarians; and to half the tribe of Manasseh, the land of the Gersaeans and the Amorites; and to the tribe of Benjamin he bequeathed the land of the Hebrews, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites; and to that of Simeon, the land of the Hebrews and the Perizzites; and to that of ^C Zebulun, the land of the Perizzites; and to Naphtali, that of the Kinaeans; and to the tribe of Dan, that of the Amorites; and to the tribe of Issachar, and to the tribe of Asher, the land of the Perizzites. Having distributed all this land, Jesus died, having lived one hundred and ten years. Eleazar the son of Aaron having deceased in the high priesthood, Phinehas his son succeeded him. But after the death of Jesus Nave, the Israelites, having departed from God, worshipped Astarte, and God delivered them into the hands of Chusarathan, the king of the Syrians, who placed them into great distress, so that being much worn down by calamities, they cried out to God, and judges were given to them.

LEON ALACCI ON THE HEXAEMERON OF EUSTATHIUS OF ANTIOCH: EXTENSIVE AND COLLECTED NOTES

^A Regarding Eustathius of Antioch and his writings, I have said more in my preface to the reader. Here I undertake to treat only two matters, which I there deliberately passed over in silence. The first will be the distinction between this Eustathius of ours and the other Eustathius, who translated the Hexaemeron of Basil the Great into the Latin tongue. The second point is to show that this author of ours, whoever he may have been, was a most ancient figure, a contemporary of Eustathius of Antioch himself. And indeed, while I was weighing in my mind the contents of this little book, and was finding that what is contained here is very similar in sentiments and words to Basil the Great on the same subject, I was long tormented by how it could have happened that either Basil borrowed from Eustathius, or Eustathius from Basil—since both were most skilled in speaking and stood in no need of the assistance of an outside style—in order to acquire the same sentiments, words, and oratorical flourishes. Sigebert, in his book *On Illustrious Ecclesiastical Writers*, chapter 21, made my mind even more doubtful when he wrote that "Eustathius translated the Hexaemeron of Basil of Caesarea from Greek into Latin." Possevinus clings to this in his *Apparatus*: "As for what Sigebert says in his Catalog, that Eustathius translated the Hexaemeron of Basil of Caesarea into Latin, I do not know of whom he speaks." I had thought Sigebert was hallucinating, and that Eustathius was more of a compiler or epitomizer of the Basilian work than an interpreter. However, Cassiodorus turned me away from that opinion in his book *On the Institution of Divine Scriptures*: "The holy Basil," he says, "explained the beginnings of Genesis in the Attic tongue, which Eustathius, a most eloquent man, translated into Latin in such a way that he seems to have equaled the talent of that most learned man with the powers of his own eloquence: he extended his work to nine books, up to the creation of man." And Junilius the African bishop—or rather the Venerable Bede, for Junilius the African has seemed to some to be older than Eustathius—says in his preface to his *Commentary on Genesis*: "Concerning the beginning of the book of Genesis, in which the creation of this world is described, many have said many things and left behind many monuments of their talent for posterity. But especially, as much as our meager ability could learn, Basil of Caesarea, whom Eustathius, as interpreter, made Latin from Greek." It is manifest, therefore, that this Eustathius, who expended effort in translating Basil, is distinct from this Eustathius of ours, since the former's was published in verse, and he himself in the preface to his ^B version sets forth his goal and intent, asserting that this task had been committed to him so that he might insert the work of the holy Bishop Basil, written in the Greek tongue, into the monuments of the Latin language; and he was commanded by the deaconess Syncletica, to whom he also deferred, and he faithfully exhibited his labor. Some have affirmed that it is this deaconess Syncletica, to whom Eustathius directs his own work, whom Sedulius mentions, pursuing her with many praises in the preface to his *Paschal* work. If these things are true, it must necessarily be admitted that Eustathius the interpreter flourished in the time of Theodosius, a contemporary of Sedulius, and most especially are those deceived who set Junilius as older than him, since the times of Junilius and Sedulius do not differ greatly. But to initiate a discussion about the Antiochene author of this treatise—that is, in what time he lived—when it is already established in history, is not worth the effort. Nevertheless, we have most evident proof of his age in this very work on page 83, where, after he had established a disputation on the end and consummation of this world, which he contended would last only six thousand years, and was pursuing an accurate enumeration of the years in order to signify to the reader what might still be expected by one looking at what had passed, he ends his calculation, bringing it to the thirtieth year of the Emperor Constantine, omitting subsequent years. Thus, it is a sign that when this author was writing these things, only those years had been numbered and no more had elapsed, which surely he would not have passed over in silence; for that was his plan. This is enough and more than enough for me, that these things were written while Constantine was alive, although the author, dragging out his life for a long time, may have exceeded that time.

Ibid. *To the Hexaemeron*. The Greeks called it the "Hexaemeron," that span of six days in which the world was founded and crafted; not because the Creator needed a span of time—for God acts not only by command, but also by thought—but because it was necessary for things to be created in a certain order: and to order, number is proper. Philo Judaeus, in *On the Creation of the World*: "He says the world was created in six days, not because the Creator had need of a long time, for it is likely that God acts by seeing, not only commanding but also contemplating, but because what came into being needed order, and to order number is natural," and he explains in the same place at length that the number six, among others, is most apt for generation by the law of nature. Whenever, therefore, anyone sets out to explain those things which [took place] in that span...

the Hexaemeron were produced by divine power, he was said to be writing on the Hexaemeron, the sum of which is contained in the entire first chapter of Genesis, the difficulty of which was such for all that, though many addressed that burden, no one achieved it according to its dignity, so covered in shadows of difficulty as all things are. Theophilus of Antioch, in book II *Ad Autolycum*: And therefore the reading of it is forbidden to the Jews before the age of thirty. Jerome, *Prologue to Ezekiel*, and Ludovicus Fidelis, *De structura mundi*, in the prologue, in which he expressed the difficulty and the intricacies of this chapter thus: "I have always judged this Genesis of the divine seer, or this structure of the vast mundane, described in six days, to be like a certain forest, opaque, dense, and shadowy, horrible in its approach, difficult of entry, and like a labyrinth full of intricacies, and most replete with the reefs of a vast sea." I candidly confess, candid reader, that in the whole of sacred Scripture I have found nothing more difficult, abstruse, and hidden than this description of the mundane mass, so that I cease to wonder that it was not permitted in antiquity to read this Genesis before the age of thirty. I found its entrance gloomy, and its progress so arduous, teeming with so many thorny thickets, pits, meanders, and heaps of difficulties, that not only once or twice, but three or four times I desisted from the pen, fearing the difficulty of the matter, and overwhelmed by ambiguities emerging from every side. Nor undeservedly, since the monk Job, in Photius’s *Bibliotheca*, relates that this work of six days, in which the creation of the world is perfected, is by its own magnitude and beauty an image of the Creator, and contributes most to the cognition of the mystery of the Trinity, and through this material and composite cognition, one arrives at the knowledge of the simple and incomposite nature and substance, and he confirms this with the testimonies of sacred Scripture. Many, however, not only among the ancients undertook this task, but among the more recent, Vincent of Beauvais, a bishop, covered everything in a huge volume, divided into thirty-two large books, under the name of the *Speculum naturale*. Eustathius omitted the first part of these words, and wished ^B the second to be the beginning of his own treatise, which even one particle—though the sentiment in the rest is consistent and most complete—leads many to argue that this little book is mutilated at the beginning. For it is, they say, collective and rational, and necessarily presupposes other things from which that statement is inferred: and so, for them, it is of the highest religion to derive the beginning of the discourse from that. But one who is not ignorant of Attic graces, and who does not abhor the sporting measures of words and new witticisms in oratory, will concede that this can indeed be done without any note of reproach, and that it is not an inconvenient beginning for a discourse. Nor are examples wanting in Himerius, Gregory Nazianzen, and others. Furthermore, Cyril of Alexandria calls Clement...; and again, more concerning Clement, and his writings [is found in] Eusebius, *De praeparatione evangelica*, lib. I; *Ecclesiast. histor.*, lib. II, cap. 11, and lib. VI, cap. 13 and cap. 11; Jerome in *Catalogo script. ecclesiast.*; Cassiodorus, lib. I, *Divinarum institutionum*; Epiphanius, *Hæresi 32, Contra Secundianos*, who reports that some handed down that he was an Alexandrian, others an Athenian; Photius in *Bibliotheca*; Nicephorus in *Hist.*, lib. IV, cap. 33, and others. He demonstrates, however, that Moses was more ancient than all the sages of Greece and contemporary with Inachus in the first book of his *Stromata*, in which he also makes mention of a certain Cassianus: and he also relates that the Jews Aristobulus and Demetrius, and Eupolemus, were writers against the Gentiles, who, in the likeness of Josephus, affirmed the antiquity of Moses and the Jewish nation: he has among other things: "A firm argument indeed for proving it, and one drawn from the adversary himself. Amosis lived in the time of Inachus; Moses in the time of Amosis. Who, unless he be insane..." ^{C D}

^A should deny that he and Moses flourished in the same times?

Ibid. *And Africanus.* Concerning Africanus, see Jerome, Trithemius, Suidas, Sixtus Senensis, and others; he left behind many and varied monuments of his genius for the greatest benefit of the learned; mention of whom is made everywhere by Greek and Latin authors. He undertook an embassy for the restoration of the city of Emmaus, which was afterward called Nicopolis, and he succeeded. Eusebius in the *Chronicon*: "Under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who had succeeded Macrinus. He wrote five volumes concerning the times; he begins from the creation of the world according to Moses, and arrives up until the advent of Christ, and indeed concisely pursues the deeds from the time of Christ up until the times of the Emperor Macrinus, in such a way, however, that he omits nothing necessary to be known." Photius in his *Bibliotheca*: "In these, as some report, he brought back all the beginnings of kingdoms, nations, and public affairs from the head to the end: then at certain intervals, which they call *homadas*, he compared them with one another; finally, he added an index of them, which he called a *Canon*, in which those things that had been gathered together in the previous books, he arranged by extended years, which the ^B Greeks call *hapla ete*; that there is no doubt that these are mistaken, I should say with the permission of such great men; for a canon in the Chronicles is one thing, and an index is another, nor are these *homadas* what they themselves say, but only for the most part things not so necessary, nor those for which a certain ratio of time could have been had, gathered together into one series of times, I should consider it easy to make a *homada*, just as those which are explained here and there under the title in the Eustathian Chronicle." Whatever, however, may be the case, it is most certain that Eusebius transcribed everything of Africanus into his own *Chronicon*, and drew everything from it. Wherefore the greatest praise for this chronological work is due to Africanus, whose labor it is, and not to be attributed to Eusebius; nor were there wanting those who rebuked Eusebius, because with such assurance he claimed the industry of another for himself, nor did he shrink from the crime of ingratitude, since he scarcely mentions him, except in those matters where he departs from his opinion, nay, even that he committed a fraud upon an excellent writer, when he inverted the words of Africanus by interpolating them. This was a customary vice for many, and it touched the minds of great men, among them ^C the Emperor Leo, who always overwhelmed with ungrateful silence the name of Onosander, from whom he had profited much, except once when he carps at his opinion in the *Tactics*.

The opinion of Dio is excellent in the Rhodian oration: "To forget the best of men, and to be deprived of the rewards of virtue, it is not possible to happen for any becoming pretext, but ingratitude, envy, and pettiness are a necessity to attach to all the most base things." Nor is he any less a thief who pilfers the goods of others, than one who purloins the monuments of the mind and the studies of others, and passes over the author in silence. Concerning which, if anyone desires more, let him approach our Commentaries on Longinus's little book *On the Sublime*. Certain fragments of the *Chronicon* of Africanus have been published together with the Eusebian *Chronicon* by Joseph Scaliger. Furthermore, you have the words of Africanus, by which he writes that Moses was coeval with Inachus, in Eusebius in the *Chronicon*, in the first book. Nor must that be passed over in silence, when we have discourse concerning the histories written by Africanus, that Jacob, Archbishop of Genoa, in the book *Annuarum solemnitatum*, and Peter, Bishop of Equilio, in book IX of the *Catalogus sanctorum*, report that Abdias, the first bishop of Babylon, and ordained by the apostles themselves, wrote the lives of the twelve apostles, which Eutropius, the disciple of Abdias, translated from Hebrew into Greek, and Julius Africanus into Latin; and under the title of this Abdias were issued by Oporinus the ten books of the apostolic contest, which were the works of Wolfgang Lazi, which, as Sixtus Senensis reports in the *Bibliotheca*, lib. II, Pope Paul IV, as being unworthy of faith, rejected among the writings condemned by himself.

Ibid. *And besides these, Tatian.* Clement of Alexandria, lib. I *Strom.*: "Earlier, however, what was consequent concerning the times according to Moses must now be said, through which it will be shown indisputably that the philosophy according to the Hebrews is the most ancient of all wisdom." It has indeed been said accurately regarding these matters by Tatian in his *Address to the Greeks*; and it has been said also by Cassianus in the first of his *Exegetica*; but the commentary requires that we also summarize the things said ^D concerning the place. The opinion concerning the age of Moses, Tatian treats in his *Oration against the Gentiles*, of which below. Concerning Tatian, and his heresy and writings, see more in Jerome in the *Catalogus*; Irenæus, lib. I, cap. 31; Eusebius, lib. VI, *Hist. eccles.*, cap. 16, 17, 19; Epiphanius, *hæres.* 46; Rodiginus, lib. III, cap. 10; *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, pag. 610 et 612; Nicephorus, lib. IV, cap. 4; Theodoretus, lib. I; Philastrius, Damascenus, and others. Some have called him, although ineptly, the Alexandrian; others the Assyrian; that he was a Syrian, Clement of Alexandria reports in book III of the *Stromateis*, and Epiphanius who adds these things: "He erected his school from the beginning in Mesopotamia around the twelfth year of Antoninus Pius Caesar, however, he performed the greatest part of his preaching in Antioch, which is situated by Daphne, and in the parts of Cilicia, and much also in Pisidia, where, when he signifies the times in which he lived under Antoninus, it is necessary that there is an error in that Philastrius: 'After the persecution of Decius', for which perhaps one should read 'of Hadrian', for under him Justin Martyr suffered."

^A And the witness to this, apart from others, is Epiphanius. Nor is it surprising, as it ought to appear, that one and the same author is referred to now as an Assyrian, now as a Syrian. For Assyria and Syria are parts of Asia so close to each other that they are often confused, whence Herodotus, book VII: *οἱ Ἀσσύριοι ἐκλήθησαν* (“they were called Assyrians”), which passage Eustathius cites in his commentary on Dionysius: “That others, besides the Syrians…” etc., and Justin, book I, who writes that they were called Assyrians by the barbarians and Syrians by the Greeks, and as Acron and Porphyry write on Horace’s *Odes*, and Ammianus Marcellinus, book XXIII: “What is now Syria was once called Assyria.” Hyginus, fable 275: “Semiramis, daughter of Dercetis, founded Babylon in Syria.” Jerome on Isaiah XX: “Those whom the ancients called Assyrians, we now call Syrians.” He transmitted many books to posterity, of which that famous book *To the Greeks*, which is reported by many sources to have been held in the greatest esteem and honor, deals at length with the antiquity of Moses. The *Alexandrian Chronicle* from Eusebius’ *Ecclesiastical History*, book IV, cap. 27: *Καταλέλοιπε δὲ οὗτος πολύ τι πλῆθος συγγραμμάτων, ὧν μάλιστα παρὰ πολλοῖς μνημονεύεται διαβόητος αὐτοῦ λόγος ὁ πρὸς Ἕλληνας, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τῶν ἀνέκαθεν χρόνων μνημονεύσας, τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν εὐδοκίμων ἁπάντων Μωσέα τε καὶ τοὺς Ἑβραίων προφήτας ἀπέφηνε προγενεστέρους· ὃς δὴ καὶ δοκεῖ τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὐτοῦ πάντων καλλίων τε καὶ ὠφελιμώτατος ὑπάρχειν.* In it, having recalled long-past times, and having praised everyone among the Greeks, he shows—as I translate it, not as an interpreter—that Moses and the Hebrew prophets are more ancient. He wrote the *Oration to the Greeks*, which is by far the most beautiful and useful of all the books he ever wrote; and this book is one and the same, not different, as Possevinus supposed, from that treatise *Against the same [Greeks]*, which was: (perhaps *To the Greeks*). He also wrote another work which he called *Diatessaron*, collected from the four Evangelists; about this the *Alexandrian Chronicle* says, from Eusebius: *Ὁ μέντοιγε πρότερος αὐτῶν Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως, τῶν Εὐαγγελίων ποιησάμενος, τὸ Διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν, ὁ παρὰ τισὶν εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν φέρεται. Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν Εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.* Which we thus translate: ^B yet earlier, Tatian, I know not how, having made a connection and synagoge [collection] of the Gospels, named this *Diatessaron*, which among some is even now carried about. Ammonius the Alexandrian indeed, having brought to bear—as is likely—great hard work and diligence, has left behind for us a *Diatessaron* Gospel, having placed the parallel passages of the other evangelists alongside the Gospel according to Matthew, so that by necessity it happened that the sequence of the order of the three was disrupted as far as the style of reading is concerned. And below, the same Victor writes: I think that for this reason [the volume] is not the edition of Ammonius, but the one mentioned, because Ammonius is said to have added the distinct discourses of the other evangelists to the account of Matthew. But this one has taken the beginnings of the holy Luke, and joined the sayings of the other three, so that it can rightly be doubted whether the invention of the same work should be attributed to Ammonius or to Tatian.

Nothing of Victor's error is caught here, since he does not think the work *On Apostolic Canons*—which necessarily must have been different from the work and *Harmony* of the same Gospels—is by Tatian, but by Ammonius. But his error is the one which Possevinus did not scent out, even though he had other authorities before him who had noted it: that he falsely ascribed to Tatian the *Harmony of the Gospels*, which was the legitimate work of Ammonius. Victor fell into a similar error, as did Gregorius Ederus in his book *Oeconomia Bibliorum* and Sixtus Senensis in book IV of his *Bibliotheca*, regarding Ammonius and Tatian. We therefore are restoring its offspring to its genuine parent, and with the names changed in the inscription, the little book or [the] concordance of the Gospels, and [the] Harmo-

- ^A nia, which is circulated under the name of Tatian, and begins, *Since many have undertaken*, which Victor of Capua and with him many others attribute to Tatian, we have restored to Ammonius of Alexandria as his genuine work; but the other, which bears the name of Ammonius, [we attribute] to Tatian of whom we are speaking, and which begins, *In the beginning was the Word*. For those things which Eusebius, the Alexandrian Chronicle, and Theodoret have handed down regarding the *Diatessaron* of Tatian agree with this. Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, lib. IV, cap. 27, writes thus: "That Tatian, who was the first of their authors and leaders, composed a certain conjunction and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, and named that work *Diá tessárōn*, that is, one Gospel collected out of four, which is still in the hands of some." The Alexandrian Chronicle and Nicephorus, *Hist. eccl.*, lib. IV, cap. 4, have described this whole passage from Eusebius, [adding] *oid’ hopōs* ("I know not how"), it must be considered; for the fraud or deceit of the heretical author is signified to us, arranging that work indecorously and not as was fitting, which Theodoret openly sets forth in *Hæret. fabul.*, lib. I, in these words: "Tatian also composed the Gospel which is called *Diá tessárōn*, having amputated the genealogies and other things, whatsoever show the Lord to have been born of David according to the flesh." But those who used it, not only those who are of his sect, but also those who follow apostolic dogmas, not knowing the fraud of the composition, but using it more simply as a compendious book. I too have found more than two hundred books of this kind, which were held in honor in our churches, which, when I had gathered them all together, I laid aside, and in their place restored the Gospels of the four evangelists. But in this second work we find all the genealogies of the Lord, which show Him to have been born of David according to the flesh, openly cut out, and all other things truncated, and the speech turned into a new form and structure, not so in the first, in which all the sayings of the four evangelists are found described word for word, with almost nothing omitted. Then, the first work with the title under which it is circulated, namely, Harmony, being arranged out of the express words of the Gospels, is detected to be by Ammonius of Alexandria, which Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, Bishop, five hundred years ago, illustrated with commentaries, which he adapted with beautiful art into one chain contexted from the sentiments of the holy Fathers. Furthermore, who does not know that Tatian was a Syrian or Assyrian, but not an Alexandrian, and that Ammonius was an Alexandrian? Let us therefore restore the titles to the books, the books to their parents, that each may recognize its own offspring, and let us inscribe on the first, *The Harmony of the Four Holy Gospels by Ammonius of Alexandria as author*; on the second, *The Diatessaron of the Gospels by Tatian the Assyrian as author*. If anyone desires more, let him approach Caesar Baronius, volume II, year 174, where he accurately remarks on many things about that work.

Col. 708, line 2. *Tōn de ek peritomēs Iōsēpos*. Regarding Josephus the historian, his life and writings, much [is said by] Eusebius, *Eccl. hist.*, lib. III, cap. 9; Jerome, in the book *De scriptoribus eccl.*, and in his *Epistle to Magnus*, a Roman orator; Sozomen, lib. I, cap. 1; Evagrius, lib. V, cap. 24; Photius, in his *Bibliotheca*; Suidas, [who speaks] about himself in several places; Joseph Scaliger in his *Prolegomena* to the book *De emendatione temporum*, praises this man highly, and prefers him to all Greek and Latin historians. He is, he says, ^B the most diligent and *philalēthestatos* ("most truth-loving") of all writers, Josephus, regarding whom we say boldly that he is to be trusted more safely not only in Jewish affairs, but also in foreign ones, than all the Greeks and Latins: therefore let the learned man cease to wonder why so many learned men, and we too, who are not strangers to the reading of this writer, defer so much to him, whose fidelity and erudition shine forth in all things. I rejoice that these praises sung to Josephus are recognized as being boldly uttered even by the panegyrist himself. Who with a composed mind could endure a man who knows not how to control himself, so as not to say what he admits to be against all justice? It is said boldly, therefore it is not true; therefore he who says it is deceived, if we believe Aristotle in the *Eudemian Ethics*, lib. III, cap. 5; for things seem [to be] otherwise than they are. "He is to be trusted more safely than all Greeks and Latins"—I would never have thought that a man could say this so boldly, and that human history, written by a man and perhaps a vary bad one, should be preferred to divine and sacred [history]. You trust Josephus more than the Gospel? A man more than God? You will say [so], but you will say it boldly, what you also previously conceived in your mind boldly and vomit forth boldly, that [his] is more secure than all sacred history. Do you want me to say it in one word? If Josephus is true in history, then you too in the correction of times—the times will fall. Many of Josephus's errors in history and hallucinations the most prudent great men have observed and corrected, among them Caesar Baronius, in the *Annales*; Pererius, in *Gen.*; Hegesippus and others. And indeed, even if I were to grant ^C Josephus to be *philalēthestatos* in things which he himself witnessed, I can still never be brought to believe that in such great obscurity of writers, variety of times, diversity of opinions, and series of years, [he was able] ^D *katorthōsai* ("to achieve the truth") in all things, even if he were the most diligent. I will add furthermore that which long ago John Pico had remarked in a certain letter to an unknown friend regarding Josephus. "What you seek regarding Josephus, know that the just Josephus is not found among the Hebrews, but an epitome of Josephus, that is, a certain breviary, in which there are many things that are fabricated, and those things which are read there regarding the ten tribes, which did not return after the Babylonian captivity, these are spurious and adulterated, as many have confessed to me from among the Hebrews, for which reason no faith at all is to be placed in their Josephus." In the Greek Josephus, I know there are some things which make a faithful and honorable mention of Christ, but I would not assert that these are entirely the same as those which are read in Latin codices, unless I were to read a Greek exemplar, of which I have no copy here, recently.

Ibid. *Kai Ioustos*. His parents, *politeian*,

and his manner, and stylings, Photius has expressed in his *Bibliotheca*. A native of Tiberias, born of a most wicked father named Pisto, if we are to believe Josephus, and by race a Jew, he began his history from Moses and carried it down to the departure of Agrippa the Seventh of the family of Herod, the last of the Jewish kings; his style is very concise, and he omitted most things that were primarily necessary to relate. Consult Jerome in his *Catalogue*, Josephus in his *Life*, and Suidas. Likewise, Stephanus in his work on cities says this of him: "From this [Tiberias] was Justus, who narrated the Jewish war against Vespasian." Truly, not only concerning this Justus, but also concerning Josephus the Jew, Tatian, Africanus, Clement, Eusebius, and other writers, mention of whom is made in this treatise, and of their writings more fully in our *Bibliotheca* of ecclesiastical writers which we have long since been preparing. Here we have touched only upon those things which seemed relevant to the matter.

Col. 708, lin. 6. *Tôn de hagiôn tis*. There is no doubt that he means Eusebius, whom he passes over by a silent name, and does so deliberately, offended by a certain hatred and rivalry. A follower of the apostolic truth and orthodox faith, the business of Eusebius—an established fact known to all—is as a tutor and defender of the Arian heresy: the Council of Nicaea, 1 and 2, the province of Eustathius, distinct in preserving the faith, and the very writings of Eusebius confirm this. For a pious and holy mind, this cause is more than enough to conceive hatred. Origen himself is another unique cause of this discord. Eusebius is entirely devoted to defending Origen; he spends his zeal and labor on history; he even ascribes the *Apologetica* written by himself to the most holy martyr Pamphilus, in order to add strength and weight to them. Let all things fall to ruin, provided only that Origen be kept safe for him, free from accusations and faults. To defend such a man, and such a hero in the Church (why should I hesitate to call Origen so, supported by the testimony of many and most ancient, and those most holy Fathers) from calumnies, is pious and a sign of a friendly mind; but, in the defense of a crime and the championing of one's dignity, to subvert the truth and to push one evil into a worse one, we allow only to Eusebius and men of his stamp. The ingenuous candor of Eustathius bears this with difficulty, and for the sake of truth, as they say, enters into a struggle even with Origen: he publicly and by voice and by writings attacks his errors, and exposes the open face of truth, not suspect to its lovers through ambiguities and deceits, and commits the judgment to those who are willing. And therefore he holds their writings troublesome to himself, and their names hateful. However, lest he seem to detract entirely from his reputation, and having attempted to undervalue him, he adorned him with this eulogy, *tôn hagiôn tis* [one of the saints], by which we read that even the most pernicious men are excepted.

Ibid. *Akribestatên tôn chronôn*. George Syncellus: "Eusebius indeed, although he had collected with great labor no ordinary treatise, and had ennobled this, his own chronological work." ^A Eusebius concerning himself in the prologue of the *Ecclesiastical History*: "Now indeed, I have already previously set forth a most complete epitome in the chronological canons, but yet at the present time I was moved to undertake the narration of them." It is truly a wonder that Josephus ^B Scaliger should be blind in the perception of these words, and that he, the censor of all others, should stand in need of a censor for these most clear words; for he says in his annotations on Eusebius, when he discusses the title of his work, that Eusebius in the preface of the *Ecclesiastical History* calls them simply and in general *Chronika*, and says that he has written an epitome of them. Nowhere is this sentiment in the words of Eusebius, nowhere is there an *Epitome of Chronicles*. But of the mind of Eusebius, more below. Suidas, not having noticed these words of Eusebius, was the cause of various commentaries for himself and many others, perhaps even for Scaliger; *chronikôn kanonôn pantodapês historias, kai toutôn epitomê*. He divided one perfect and absolute work into two, of which the one would be the *Chronicon* extending widely, and the other would contain the same as the first, but curtailed and reduced into an epitome. Johannes Curterius, in the epistle which he prefixed to the fragments of Eusebius in his edition of the books of the *Ecclesiastical History*, asserts that only the epitome remains for us, but that the chronological canons have perished, with the argument taken from those fragments ^C which are cited by Anastasius the Nicene bishop, *Lib. quaest. in S. Scripturam*, from Eusebius in the *Chronicles*, which, however, are not found in the Eusebian *Chronicles* as they circulate. Trithemius seems to favor this opinion, when, in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, enumerating the works of Eusebius, he calls this very work of Eusebius not *Chronicon*, but *Epitome Chronica*: for thus he says, "The book of *Epitome Chronica* one, with this beginning: 'Moses of the Hebrew race.'" Others have thought that the *Chronicon* which exists is not that *Epitome* composed by Eusebius, nor did Jerome translate that, but that it is the true chronicle of history made by Eusebius and translated by Jerome, even though reduced to another form and mutilated. Ludovicus Vives in *August. lib. xviii, De civit. Dei, cap. 8*, and Arnoldus Pontacus are of the opinion that both exist, the *Chronicon* and the *Epitome*, and that this very work is that which we have at hand, and which is called by Jerome and others the *Chronicon* of Eusebius. If anyone desires the various reasons and explanations of these, let him read the *Apparatus* of Pontacus in the notes to the *Chronicon* of Eusebius. For there, while he refutes these opinions which we have written, he proves his own, and as he himself things, he strives to confirm it with most valid reasons, not what he had proposed for himself, but demonstrates something else contrary to hope and expectation; for he says: "Eusebius indeed distinguishes the books of the *Ecclesiastical History* from the ^D *Chronicon*, which in the former is fuller, in the latter more brief, in the former separately, in the latter summarized, and, as he himself speaks, by way of an epitome, and so he teaches most manifestly that the *Chronicles* and the *epitome* are the same work; which things, if they are true, do not prove his proposal: for it is one thing to agree with Ludovicus Vives, that both

the *Chronicon* and the *Epitome* of Eusebius exist, and another that Eusebius distinguished the books of his History from the *Chronicon*, and indeed recorded events and the series of years more fully and in detail in the former, but more briefly and in summary in the *Chronicon*. It would also be ridiculous to assert, as some have supposed, that he divided this work, the *Chronicon*, into two parts, such that in the first there would be ^A fixed canons or registers or columns, in which nothing else was seen but the name of the king and the numbers of his years; and that in the latter were contained all the things that pertained to history, which currently occupy these various columns. We shall therefore elicit this matter, which is obstructed by many difficulties, very clearly from the mere interpretation of the words of Eusebius, if we believe the aforementioned authors are dividing [that is, misinterpreting] Eusebius, and recognizing them as two treatises, whereas they are one and the same. For Eusebius, being most expert in past events, narrated the various occurrences of things in his *Ecclesiastical History* at length, and as his duty as an historian required, sparing neither words nor the structure of his sentences. In order that all these things might better and more easily occur to the reader, with superfluous parts removed and less necessary ones truncated, he had arranged them, as in an epitome, in his ^B *Chronicon* before he wrote the *History*. For these very words of Eusebius hint at this to us, which, having been excerpted through the fault of translators, have been a source of great difficulty to very learned men. The meaning of those words, rightly expressed by Rufinus, is this: "Although I have already touched upon some matters concerning these very things in the *Chronicles* (that is, in that work which we have written concerning the reckoning of time) briefly and succinctly, nevertheless, in the present work, we shall attempt to unfold the narrative of each individual event more fully." The *epitome* therefore which Eusebius here praises is not an epitome of his *Chronicon*, as almost everyone has opined to this day, but it is an epitome of the matters which he had pursued more fully and with a more prolix compass of words and sentences in the *History*. Nor will you find Suidas, if you invert the smallest series of words, to differ or disagree with this opinion of ours; for he ^C says regarding Eusebius and his writings: *Ecclesiastical History* ten books, *Chronicles of the canons of all-embracing history, and an epitome of these*. You should read it thus: *Ecclesiastical History ten books, and an epitome of these in the Chronicles of the canons of all-embracing history*: namely, ten books of *Ecclesiastical History*, and an Epitome of these in the *Chronicles of the canons of all-embracing history*, as if he were to say, The Canons of all-embracing history are an epitome of the ten books of the *Ecclesiastical History*. Eusebius, therefore, wrote the *Chronicon*, which is as it were a compendium of the matters written by himself in the *Ecclesiastical History*, and not a *Chronicon* and a *Compendium of the chronicle*, as many have rashly opined.

Col. 708, line 7. *In the times of Inachus, the one...* Josephus Scaliger and others, and George Syncellus before them, have found that Eusebius hallucinated in many places in his *Chronicon*. Nor is it a wonder that a man, in such great obscurity and ignorance of affairs, should sometimes have fallen. All other writers also possess ^D their notes, and while they correct many others, they have been detected as erring and that most shamefully; we are men, he used to say, not gods. That, however, is not unworthy of some consideration: namely, whether Eusebius is worthy of his praise, when, spurning the opinion of so many Jewish and Christian writers concerning the age of Moses, he recurs to certain new discoveries. Truly, venerable antiquity and the opinions of wise men are worthy of being admired and honored by us, and it is too dangerous to wander outside of them. Wherefore George Syncellus remarkably castigates the plan of Eusebius in these words: "That Eusebius himself has borne witness to the absurdity of his account is sufficient for understanding by those who have at least some slight share in learning, other than that which is acknowledged in ancient histories. For one thing alone is sufficient for him to refute those things written, and it is that he opposes the opinions of so many great philosophers, and brings forward his own without evidence. For things introduced against the opinions of the many, or rather of all, could hardly be accepted by those who are well skilled in judging these things, even with much proof." Josephus Scaliger vindicates Eusebius from this expostulation of George. For what has been received by the consensus of all, and has earned faith and authority through time, does not necessarily follow that it is true. A good reason, I do not know if it is from a right mind. I would not wish for Scaliger on this account to reject the continuous opinions and doctrines confirmed by the authority of the ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church from its inception, by intruding new ones: because it does not necessarily follow that they are true. The innovator himself favors innovators. Let him know that all new things are suspect.

Ibid., line 9. *Chronicon of the canons.* From Eusebius: *And in the present work, having gathered the times together into one place, and having arranged in parallel the number of years for each nation, I have made a composition of a chronological canon.* This work of Eusebius is distinguished by various titles or names; for by some it is called *Chronica* in the singular feminine, by others *Chronica*, by others *Chronicon*, by others *Chronici*, by others *Chronica*, by others *Books of the Chronicles*, by others *Chronicle history*, *History of times*, *History of the Chronicles*, *Annals*, *Book of times*, *The manifold history of the Chronic Canons*, *Chronicon of all-embracing history*. But that all these things may be known more clearly, lest one and the same thing be obscured by various titles, it will be worth the effort to explain what this treatise of Eusebius was, and into what members it was divided, and what was its principal and primary aim. There was, therefore, one perfect and absolute *Chronicon* of Eusebius, which, as Marcellinus Comes asserts in the preface to his own *Chronicon*, Eusebius of Caesarea edited in the Greek style, from the foundation of the world unto the prince Constantine, the origin of this age, the times, years, reigns, the virtues of mortals, and the inventors of various arts, and the records of almost all provinces, and our [Jerome] translated it into Latin, and added in the Roman tongue up to the Caesar Valens. Therefore, both authors of this work...

computed this world then to be of 588 years with wondrous talent. The author made the work of two parts: the former he inscribed

Canon of Universal History

Chronological Canon

Chronological Canon

Evangelical Canons

Chronological Canon

Chronological Canon

Chronological Canon

Col. 708, lin. 10. Our Eustathius best explains with these words from whom or whence the beginning of his

Chronological Canon

De pallio

Chronicle

Col. 708, lin. 11. The words are of Eusebius in the proem ^D of his

Chronological Canon

Archaeologia

^A some have thought that Homer and Hesiod were contemporary with David, or that they were a little before him, or that they came to be after these times. From Cecrops to the fall of Ilium, the years are gathered to be 400 save a little. But to speak truly, Moses is later than these, but most ancient of those who are mythologized among the Greeks—I mean Homer and Hesiod, and the events of the Trojan war itself, and furthermore [the stories of] the Dioscuri, Asclepius, Dionysus, and all the heroes, and Hermes and Apollo, and the rest of the gods among the Greeks, their mysteries and rites, and the deeds of Zeus himself as they are recounted among the Greeks. For after Cecrops comes the deluge in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in the time of Phaethon, and the birth of Erichthonius, and the founding of Dardania by Dardanus, whom Homer first mentions: *He was begotten by cloud-gathering Zeus.* The carrying off of the Maiden, and the mysteries of Demeter, etc. Every deed admired among the Greeks from the times of Inachus and Phoroneus is carried forward to later times. Wherefore also Plato in the dialogue *Timaeus* makes mention of the times of Phoroneus as being very ancient, and [mentions] Niobe and the most ancient deluge of Ogygos, as it is told.

^B Relating to Homer and Hesiod. To him, first of all, God [at line 3 of col. 709: "This one, therefore..."]

[Regarding the Latin column:] ...that we may correct: for sadly in Eusebius, from whom our own [text comes], not only in the printed versions but in almost all manuscripts, it is written: 350, instead of 375; but this correction is confirmed by a calculation begun from the start. For if to the year 460 from Abraham, in which fall the 35th year of Moses and the first of Cecrops, you add 375, you will find the year 835, in which occurred the fall of Troy, and this is what Eusebius himself writes near the year 835 from Abraham. The authority of Africanus in the *Chronicon* makes this easier for me to believe, where he says: Col. 708, line 21. *Which things among the Greeks.* From Eusebius: Moses, to speak truly, is later than these, but the most ancient of those thought to be ancient among the Greeks, I mean Homer and Hesiod, and the Trojan events themselves, and yet the Dioscuri, Asclepius, Dionysus, and all the heroes, and Hermes and Apollo, and the rest of the gods among the Greeks, and their mysteries and rites, and the deeds of Zeus himself mentioned among the Greeks. For after Cecrops happens the deluge in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in the time of Phaethon, and the birth of Erichthonius, and the founding of Dardania by Dardanus, whom Homer says first: *He was begotten by cloud-gathering Zeus.* The carrying off of the Maiden, and the mysteries of Demeter, etc. Which passage of Eusebius must be supplied from this our Eustathius under the guidance of Jerome: *the birth of Erichthonius from Hephaestus and the Earth*, which are missing in the Greek. The same Eusebius in this same *Chronicon* in the first part: Everything admired among the Greeks from the times of Inachus and Phoroneus is carried forward to the later period. Wherefore also Plato in the dialogue *Timaeus* makes mention of the times of Phoroneus as being very ancient, and of Niobe, and of the most ancient deluge of Ogygos, as is said.

Ibid., line 25. Concerning these and other authors mentioned by Eustathius, we shall say more in our *Bibliotheca* of profane writers. For it does not seem to pertain to the present business to relate more about them, just as [it is not necessary] concerning other fabulous things the mention of which is made here. Read, if you please, Apollodorus, Cornutus, Palaephatus, Hyginus, and the other writers of fables. Yet the dignity of Homer does not permit him to be passed over so dryly; wherefore I shall transcribe here what Velleius has handed down about him: "Then the most brilliant genius of Homer shone forth, greatest without example: who by the magnitude of his works and the splendor of his poems alone deserved to be called a poet. In whom this is greatest, that neither before him was anyone found whom he could imitate, nor after him someone who could imitate him; nor shall we find anyone else in history whose work he was the first author, yet [remained] in it most perfect, except for Homer and Archilochus." He was distant from the times of the war which he composed, the Trojan war, longer than some think; for he was nearly, etc. Concerning his age and his excellent and divine nature, see the *Animadvensions* of Justus Lipsius in the same place. These things do not please Julius Scaliger; but what is surprising? It displeased him before, and the keen and unblamed judgment of divine men; and which, would that it were false for its own good! And for the sake of true catholic truth; but we respond to his efforts and arguments, as well as those of others against Homer, in defense of our Homer against calumnies, as the truth of the cause demands. Concerning the times of Homer and Hesiod, Joannes Antiochenus has this in his *Archaeologia*: [alt-version omitted]

Ibid., line 27. *And further of Chiron*. Josephus Scaliger in his *Animadvensions* on the *Chronicon* of Eusebius inveighs bitterly against Jerome, and harasses him with many things, because in that translation he omitted many necessary things, added more of his own, and in many [others] did not grasp the mind of Eusebius: so also in this place he says that Jerome added this name of Chiron of his own accord, and did not stick to the footsteps of his author in all things. It is one thing to be hostile to the name of someone, another to investigate the truth which is in the writings; for many things in the codex which Jerome was translating could perhaps have been read otherwise, which he himself gave in Latin, even if now in the text which we have at hand they are seen to either exceed or fall short; and that this is clear from this name Chiron, which if it had not been in the Eusebian text, Eustathius would never have recorded it in his writings. We say the same of others. But in many things Jerome erred, nor did he perform the duty of a faithful interpreter, as was fitting. I shall say what I think, Scaliger. The errors of most distinguished men spark amazement, not contempt; just as a graver illness and sudden death in a robust man inspire fear, [and] warn and make even the most robust men, not those less strong, more cautious regarding human frailty. Those who saw Cato drunk did not laugh, but blushed. And therefore it was well said, that it was not Cato who was caught by them, but they who were caught by Cato. Nor does Seneca fare otherwise in his book *On the Tranquility of the Mind*, ch. 15: "Drunkenness was objected to Cato. But whoever objects this will more easily make this shameful act honest, than he will make Cato shameful." It is a mark of humanity to venerate a man who has deserved well of the republic, of letters, of history, and of all things, and especially Jerome, if he ever fails. But I shall open the machine ^D Scaliger thinks, as do many others, that if they refute the interpretations of Jerome by harassing him, they diminish the authority of that man, and find wanting the faithfulness in his versions: wherefore they later conclude that the common edition of sacred Scripture is not of that weight and dignity as the catholic Church holds it to be; wherefore they themselves attempt new interpretations, and disturb true dogmas already long confirmed, in order to communicate their new ones to the simpler folk: but the interpretations of Jerome, such as they are, will stand; Scaliger's, if there are any that are very fine and elegant, and those of others like them, will fall. Col. 709, line 3. *This one, therefore*. Justin Martyr in his *Exhortation to the Greeks*, concerning the same Moses: *To this one first, God, and the gift from above, which at that time granted divine and prophetic [grace]*...

and prepared him to become the teacher of our piety; then after him the remaining prophets, who themselves also obtained the same gift as he, and taught us the same things concerning the same [subjects].* It is evident that this was by Him.

And many among the Greeks ^B consider the words said by the philosophers, or writers, and poets to be trustworthy, because they are polished in their phrasing; yet their discourse is shown to be foolish and empty, because their babbling comprises a great multitude, but any portion of truth is not found in them. For even if anything seems to have been pronounced truly through them, it contains a mixture of error. For just as a poisonous draught mixed with honey, or wine, or something else, makes the whole thing harmful and useless, so also the verbosity within them is found to be labor in vain, and a harm rather to those who are persuaded by it.

^C *For that of the Egyptians.* He whom the daughter of Pharaoh adopted, and reared him royally, setting over him the wise men of the Egyptians as teachers of his education. Among whom, not only was Moses born, but he was deemed worthy to partake of all the education of the Egyptians, because he was taken into the country as a son by the king's daughter, and because of the aforementioned reason was deemed worthy of much diligence, as the wisest of the historians relate, who also chose to record his life and deeds and the dignity of his lineage—Philo and Josephus. ^D Teachers were immediately present from elsewhere; some from the neighboring regions and from the nomes throughout Egypt, having come of their own accord, while others were sent for from Greece with great rewards. Therefore, the learned men of the Egyptians taught him arithmetic and geometry, both rhythmic and harmonic, and metric theory, and all music—both through the use of instruments and through the discourses of the arts—and the more local expositions, and furthermore the philosophy through symbols which they manifest in what are called the sacred letters, and through the acceptance of animals, which they also honor with the honors of gods; but the Greeks taught him the other cycle of education; while those from the neighboring regions taught him the Assyrian characters, and the Chaldean science of the heavens. Different, however, is the distinction set by those who are distressed by error—the Greeks, and the Greeks whose perception is darkened by ignorance concerning the Divine—and the Christians, whose eyes of the intellect have been illuminated through faith, and who are able clearly to gaze upon the sun of righteousness through their confession. For the former, stumbling in their own reasoning as if in darkness, and having a mind unguided because of prejudice, journey dangerously in their reasonings, groping only—in the matters about which they dogmatize—at the fluid and unstable nature of things seen; but the eye of true contemplation they have lost, either dimmed by time or blinded by error. One must by all means read the most elegant and eloquent *Irrisio* of the philosopher Hermias against the Gentile philosophers, in which many [things are discussed].

^A For if the opinions of John Pico, thus elaborated and explained, differ from the opinions of Moses, and his text is discordant, if they are discordant, what is this discordance? Let him confess it, and then consider. If they adhere to the opinion of Moses, and are accommodated to his words, and agree, and do not abhor either the Catholic truth or the sayings of the holy Fathers, why does he blame the blameless? Something must be attempted for the greatest geniuses, who cannot endure reins; the powers of genius must be loosened, and their impetus must not be broken by the most narrow circle of the ancients. As I praise this, so also I accused the opinion of Cajetan at the beginning of his *Commentaries on Genesis*; and it is this: If at any time some sense occurs that is consonant with the text, even though it may be alien to the torrent of doctors, let the reader show himself an impartial critic, and let no one detest what may be dissonant from the ancient doctors. For God did not bind the exposition of Scripture to the minds of the ancient doctors, otherwise the hope of our explaining Scripture would be taken away, unless by transferring it, as they say, from one book to another. I restore the Greek text of Eustathius thus: "For the doctrines which are carried about from human thought happen to be unclear and ungrounded." Finally, see the words of Basil on the philosophers, hom. 1: "For they treated of nature, those wise men of the Greeks, and not one word among them stood unmoved and unshaken, the second always overthrowing the one before it; so that for us it is no work to refute their things; for they suffice for one another for their own destruction." And hom. 3: "And what need is there for us to have trouble in refuting their falsehoods, when it suffices to lay their own books side by side, and in great quiet to sit as spectators of their war? For they are neither fewer in number, nor inferior in dignity, but by their polyphony and by differing much from one another, they stand against the opposite argument."

Col. 709, line 12. *For from human [thought].* Nevertheless, whenever the doctrines and teachings of the philosophers do not deviate from the truth, where their argument is manifest, and experimental proof is certain, and they are not in the least contrary to the sacred letters, there is no reason why we should abhor them; for the truth of the sacred letters is ^B nowhere contrary to human reasonings and experiences. The opinion of Augustine on this is secure, *lib.* 1 *in Genes. ad litter.*, cap. 21: "This must be held without doubt, that whatever the wise men of this world have been able to demonstrate truly concerning the nature of things, we should show it not to be contrary to our scriptures; but whatever they teach in their volumes that is contrary to the sacred letters, we should believe without any doubt to be false, and as far as we are able, show it to be so; and thus hold the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, so that we may neither be seduced by the loquacity of false philosophy, nor terrified by the superstition of simulated religion." And that I may speak freely what I think concerning a matter that is too much agitated and disputed: I have always considered those to be most foolish who are so hostile to philosophy and the more cultivated letters that they do not even allow them to be heard. They have all other things from them, and they distort the words of Scripture so that they do not curiously search for its own opinion, but for what outsiders have felt, and they accommodate Scripture to their opinion in that way. I have always praised those as most prudent who explain human reasons and true experiments in such a way that they most clearly demonstrate that they feel the same as the divine letters, and prove most effectively that their mind agrees with the true sense of Scripture. For although the divine letters stand in need of no external help, but supported by their own divine spirit manifest the truth to all, which is doubtful to no one; yet it is not ^C alien or indecorous to their majesty and dignity if we recognize that the power of that truth is so great that it has been made sufficiently patent to others too. Therefore, Pererius undeservedly reproves, in *in Genes.*, lib. 1, John Pico of Mirandola, who had composed the *Heptaplus* over the first chapter of Genesis, and discussed seven new expositions, and doctrines concerning the works of the six days, attempted by none of the prior writers, but by himself first thought, discovered, elaborated, and perfected, saying that this book contributes little to understanding the doctrine of Moses. I would have gladly asked ^D Pererius, if the sentences of John Pico, thus elaborated and explained, differ from the sentences of Moses...?

Ibid., line 19. *God created the heaven.* Concerning the exposition of this place, Augustine Eugubinus is quite sharply rebuked by some, and his exposition is exploded not only as false and most absurd, and abhorrent from Christian discipline, but as a perverse and impious dogma. For in his *Cosmopoeia*, and in the tract *De naturis incorporeis*, he writes that the empyrean heaven is light, and a certain brightness flowing from the essence of God, in which God is, and to whose participation and fruition both good angels and just men are admitted. For this, he says, is that eternal light and brightness of God, which is so often promised in Scripture to just men as the reward of their labors: concerning which he thinks that what David sings of God in Ps. CIII, 2 must be understood, *Covering thyself with light as with a garment*; and that of Paul: *Who dwelleth in light inaccessible* 1; and that of the Lord in John: *Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was* 2. A specimen of the same light...

was given in the Transfiguration of the Lord, and in the bush of Moses, and in his face from the conversation and intimacy had with God, shining above human sight; and he confirms this opinion of his with the testimony of Basil the Great, who in his homily on Genesis hands down all the same things in the same words as our own Eustathius, page 50. If anyone wishes to defend this opinion of Eugubinus, he himself will be unworthy of any defense. The empyrean heaven is not God; how then is it eternal? How is it uncreated? This light flows from the essence of God; how then is it the empyrean heaven? And if the empyrean heaven is God, how does Scripture not rave when it says, *In the beginning God created the heaven*? I would never say that a thing not of the same essence as God is not God. If, therefore, this light of yours and the empyrean heaven are God, and Creator, and yet also distinct from God and from the creature, neither the opinion of Eustathius and Basil, whom Theodoret also seems to have followed in Genesis, nor that of Methodius, or Timotheus the Presbyter of Jerusalem in his oration on the Hypapante, ^B approve of his opinion, nor do they add weight or firmness to it. For these Fathers do not affirm that that light and brightness which they posit as uncreated—distinct from that which was produced along with the heaven and the earth, and in the same way that heaven and earth were produced, though it be subject to no darkness, no corruption, and no time—is the empyrean heaven, nor that heaven of which it is said, *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*. But what is to be thought of this opinion of the Fathers, and whether it should be reckoned among matters of note or rejected as a paradox, I do not judge here; for later, along with Eustathius on page 60, we shall speak a little, yet with reverence. For I venerate the words of the Catholic Fathers, and, I shall speak the truth, I adore them.

Col. 709, line 20. *He that established the heaven*. Basil, homily on the Hexaemeron: And as for the form, we have enough from his words in the doxology of God: *He who established the heaven as a vault*. We advise ourselves to judge the same things regarding the earth, not to be over-curious about its substance, whatever it might be. ^C For to a living being destined to contain all living things within itself, the most suitable shape would be one that has encompassed within itself all shapes; and for this reason, he fashioned it as the most perfect of all, spherical, equidistant from the center in every direction in its extremities, and most like to itself of all shapes, having deemed that which is like to be ten thousand times more beautiful than that which is unlike; and he polished the whole of it on the outside for the sake of many things. And as for the great, previously unbending straightness, at the beginning to ask the words of him who said, "did it bend into a sphere if not for friendship?" For, so to speak, as if in love with its own beauty and order, it wound itself into a circle, befriending itself from everywhere and completely binding its parts together in a embrace. That the heaven is not spherical, nor the earth, but the one is as a vault, and the other is oblong, and the ends of the heaven are fastened to the ends of the earth.

Proclus ^D variously explains this in his *Commentary on the Timaeus*, and Cicero also in *De natura deorum*: "What," he says, "is more beautiful than that figure which alone contains all other figures, and which can have no roughness, no offense, nothing cut by angles, nothing with turnings, nothing protruding, nothing hollow?" In Alcinous's *Introduction to the Philosophy of Plato*: Which is not repugnant to the divine letters, nay, it can not obscurely be gathered and confirmed from those words at the beginning of Ecclesiastes: *The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, he wheeleth by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits*. Wherefore Jerome in *Comm. cap. v Epist. ad Ephesios* gravely rebukes those who make the heaven not round on all sides, but curved only in the manner of a vault. This is entirely certain, since it is overcome not only by arguments, but is also established by experiment, that this is a double hemisphere, and that antipodes press their footsteps opposite to ours, of which Manilius in *Astronom.*:

"Nor is the world smaller than them, nor worse in light; Nor are fewer stars born in the orb: And others whose reasons are laws in places praised by us."

For this figure, as Pliny says, lib. 11, c. 2, turns in upon itself with all its parts, and is to be endured by itself, and includes and contains itself, needing no fastenings. Perceiving neither end nor beginning in any of its parts, nor that it needs to be turned toward a motion, as will soon appear, such a figure is most apt, but it is also evident by the proof of the eyes that it is convex, and whichever way it is viewed from the middle, since it cannot happen in any other figure. And Theodorus Prodromus in *Dialog. de amic. exsule*: "Who found the heaven and the great previously unbending straightness..." Those who can be read in this opinion are also those things which Clement of Rome has, lib. VI *Recognit.* But there was a wonderful consensus among the ancient Fathers in this, namely that the heaven is not round but like a vault, as we have here from our Eustathius, Basil, Chrysostom, hom. 14 and 17 on the Hebrews, Augustine, lib. II *De Gen. ad litteram*, who also elsewhere says he doubts whether the earth is contained by the heaven enveloped on all sides. Of the same opinion was the author of the book called *Christianorum*, as Photius reports in *Biblioth.*: Theodorus also, Bishop of Tarsus, lib. 1 *Contra fatum*, pursues this same thing in many chapters, as is held in Photius: "In the third..."

and the twenty-first, and the twenty-third, and the twentieth, and the fourth, he refutes those who posit the heavens as spherical." However, the refutations do not proceed by means of strong arguments. And he does not wish to concede a spherical shape to the heavens, because he believes that "fate" (einepmene) is introduced by such a position. Although no demonstration forces this: for if the heavens were spherical, it does not follow of necessity that "fate" is established. ^B

Elenchi contra haeres.

LXXIX, lin. 15. Basilius, hom. 1 *in Hexaem.*: "But concerning the essence of the heavens, we are satisfied with what is said by Isaiah, who in plain terms has instilled in us a sufficient understanding of its nature, by saying: 'He who established the heaven as smoke' (Isa. XL, 22), that is, a thin nature; and he did not fashion it to be solid, nor thick, for the constitution of the heavens." And one might restore this place from his words as follows: "In which he determines that famous controversy, namely, that the substance of the heaven is not mixed, but simple, about which many things have been handed down to us by Plotinus in *De mundo*, and others." For some have judged the heaven to be of the same nature as the elements, which Theodoret reports in *De materia et mundo*, as do Philo Judaeus in *De somno*, and Plutarch. Others say it is of the nature of fire, of which opinion Albertus Magnus reports the Egyptians to be authors, *tract. De caelo*, cap. 4. You have Plato's opinion on this in Alcinous; in Macrobius, lib. *in Somn. Scipion.*; in Augustine, lib. VIII *De civitate Dei*, cap. 11; and in Philoponus on books VI and XIII of Proclus. But about this, our Eustathius, leaving to others the task of declaring from what the heaven is concreted, hands down its nature through the words of Isaiah as thin, not solid, nor thick, refuting the opinion of those who posited the heaven as solid like crystal, and of those who posited it as earthy and heavy, and of Anaximenes, who had fabricated it from earth, of which Origen speaks in lib... ^D

Olympiodorus defends this sentiment of Eustathius in *Job* on those words of ch. XXXVIII: "And it is spread out like the dust of the earth" (Job XXXVIII, 38). Note the sentiment of John Chrysostom: "The most foolish Mohametus asserts that the air is made from smoke, and smoke from vapor or marine exhalation. That the first heaven consists of green water, the second of clear water, the third of emerald, the fourth of gold, the fifth of hyacinth, the sixth of a shining tablet, the seventh of the brightness of fire, and that from one heaven to another there is a distance of a journey of five hundred years." Who would not marvel at the man's genius and his patience in describing such things? How observant this man is! How much he sees! Let the mathematicians and geometers go away, then, with their measures and numbers. He alone saw the distance which neither all other men nor the author of nature himself saw.

*Ibid.*, lin. 23. Basilius, however, says in hom. 1, that the foundations of the earth are unknown to the nature of men, and he explains the place of the Psalm which Eustathius brings forward here. The opinion of the external philosophers, however, is more accepted: that God founded the earth in the center of a sphere, which encompasses the world on all sides, since it is equidistant from the heaven on all parts because of its equilibrium, and that for this reason it has obtained a firm seat and rests unmoved, having acquired a fixed base; and Aristotle proves this with very valid arguments in *De caelo*, cap. 14, and indeed, the lowest place was due to the more despicable and inferior element, the earth, the most inferior of the elements, a place which is strictly the lowest and furthest from the heavens. The center of the world is furthest from the heavens, and therefore its own nature had to be placed in it, whence the earth sustains the waters, and not conversely are the waters sustained by the earth. Behold the new physiology of the "Nebulo" [The Dreamer/Fool]. The earth, says Mohametus, is sustained by a great ox whose head is extended toward the east, his tail toward the west, and his four feet rest on a white stone. On his head he has forty horns, each of which is distant from the other by a thousand years' journey. Beneath the stone, however, is an infernal mountain named Zoth, which sinners are forced to climb, and when one is well-burdened, it totters and precipitates those submerged into hell: beneath this mountain is the earth and then the sea, and again...

^A to the number of seven lands and seas. The last of the lands is white as milk, soft as crocus, fragrant as musk, and bright as the moon; beneath it is a great fish, whose head extends to the east and its tail towards the west, upon whose back the lands, seas, and air are founded and lie, even to the end of the world. Beneath the fish is a wind that sustains it; beneath this, thunder; again, beneath this, a dark sea; afterwards, praises; from these, glory; next, a throne; after it, a painted tablet and a pen; and below, the great names of God: but I am weary of these absurdities, for which there is no limit in this trifler.

Col. 709, line 26. *For where faith has informed the human intellect, and human reasonings and experiments must be rejected as of no moment, in which there is no opinion, no verisimilitude, no fallacy, no hesitation, no doubt, but in the obscurity all things are patent, and it firmly holds them by understanding; and those things which it does not see, the Christian believes as most certain and assents to them.* This faith is superior to any demonstration, more certain than any certainty, and higher than any discipline. Wherefore John Pico most wisely affirmed in his conclusions: *As faith, which is credulity, is beneath science; so faith, which is truly faith, is supersubstantially above science and joins us immediately to God.* It is madness to examine the works of divine power in such a way that our intellect should be its measure; it is madness to have agitated through the human mind—that divine mind, and things which the world does not grasp—and to investigate immense, sacred, eternal, and admirable things by an uncertain, immoderate, and fragile conjecture, ^B for the character of piety settles into their habits, rekindling the character acquired from such a habit, and leading them little by little to the desire for the good. But since this was divided into many parts by those who came after, more numerous questions arose, just as among the eristics, from which it happened that some became more quick-witted than others, and more inquisitive, as one might say; and some already even took the lead in heresies, from which the character, hidden according to the habit, withered; for those who presumed to lead the heresies did not attain to the precision of the Word, and the great multitude was disposed toward it quite seditiously, and no canon or laws were spoken from which to provide a solution to the questions. And just as ambition in other things, falling into excesses, ruins everything, so too in these cases, each one, by the novelty of his opinions, striving to surpass the one before him, has cast this same philosophy into an unending matter; just as the one called Manichaeus, who is a Persian by birth, in my opinion, surpassed everyone in telling wonders. And his innovation has not long spread. A certain Papos was the first by that name, etc.

Ibid., line 28. *Impossible, for*. And *The light*. ^C The simplicity of faith. But if not, at least let the simplicity of faith be stronger than logical proofs. The philosophy of the Christians is called simple; but it applies the greatest care to the formation of the character, alluding to the more precise discourses concerning God, the essence of which everyone would reasonably accept for the sake of this study. There, they consider the creative cause to be most precious, and most ancient, and the cause of all things that exist. Since they also leave out the more laborious things for the moralists, such as what moral virtue is, and logic, and all that is said concerning morals and passions, they spend their time on the hypothetical place; not giving elements for the acquisition of each virtue, but heaping up, as it happened, coarser precepts, hearing which the great multitude, as can be learned from experience, makes great progress toward gentleness, and ^D *And in speed*. But in the breadth all the parts of the world, northern and southern, and eastern and western, it illuminated in the swift moment of time, the use and reason of which he renders, which you may read if you like. The acclamations of it are wonderful, and Dionysius the Areopagite in chapter 4 *Of the Divine Names*, and chapter 15 *Of the Celestial Hierarchy* relates more than thirty properties. For nothing is more appropriate for the beauty and adornment of the world; whence Hugh of Saint Victor: *What is more beautiful than light? Which, while it has no color in itself, yet in a way colors the colors of all things.* This also, when it communicates itself effusively to all parts, is called the principal instrument by which celestial bodies flow into lower ones, and by which it reaches us from heaven. Which Avicenna also said, lib. *Meteor.*, calling light the vehicle of all celestial virtues, and Albertus Magnus confirms it in lib. *De som. et vigil.* Wherefore St. Ambrose, lib. *Hexaem.*, cap. 9, wrote that the nature of one is not undeservedly not in measure, not in weight, as other things.

^B And since their nature is situated in the privation of light, they could not properly have God as their effector, since God is not the author of privations, but of things which truly exist; which darkness, indeed, preceded the condition of this visible light according to the opinion of the Greek Fathers. The words of Methodius are: "Thou strivest with me, and thou standest against me, and thou contendest with my athletes. Where wast thou when I was fashioning the earth? Who wast thou then?" "Already," he says, "thou hast fallen." For even in the beginning of the creation of the world, there was darkness, he says, over the abyss; this darkness was not a created darkness, but a darkness which began by choice, through the privation of light. From which words [I see] how Comitolus elicits that it was created by God. Which, however, St. Thomas explains in the *Prima Pars*, q. 5, and elsewhere. Truly, this opinion of Eustathius concerning the very swift and momentary action of light, by which it unfolds itself, is confirmed besides Basil and Ambrose by Aristotle, lib. *De anim.*, tex. 70, and others against Empedocles, who said that light was moved. For if that transit did not happen in a point of time, at least a delay in a great space would be perceived. Which also agrees with reason and the nature of light itself, since light has no contrary: for there is nothing contrary to substance, and because it is shed in such a way that the same portion of light does not pass from one part to another, as happens to a thing changing its place, which runs through individual parts of space one and the same, and corresponds to them according to itself; whence it happens that by running through now these, now those in succession, it brings about delays and consumes time. Wherefore Aristotle most excellently, refuting the contrary opinion, says: I think that Plotinus wished for this same thing, lib. IV, *Ennead.* 6, when, speaking of light, he declared by many reasons that light ^C is not divisible or multiplex because of diverse parts, but is whole in every part, just as the directing virtue is whole in every part of weight, and the soul in the body. For what is not extended by the succession of parts, nor by the succession of motion, but is diffused through all parts in a point of time.

Col. 709, line 35. *Πρὸ γὰρ τούτου. Basilius hom. 2:* “The darkness is not explained as they are accustomed to—as a certain unilluminated air, or a place shadowed by the opposition of a body, or generally for any cause a place deprived of light—but as an evil power, or rather evil itself having its beginning from itself,” etc. And lower down: “Since therefore heaven was made, by the command of God, suddenly wrapped around those things within contained by its own circumference, having a continuous body sufficient to separate the inner from the outer, it necessarily made the place left to it lightless, cutting off the light from without. For three things must come together for a shadow: light, body, and an unlit place. The worldly darkness, therefore, existed alongside the shadow of the heavenly body.” And “darkness over the abyss,” calling water the abyss, and darkness the unlit air. For and strictly darkness is the absence of light. And usage also calls unlit air darkness, that is, the nocturnal condition of the air, or what happens in some other way.

^D concerning these shadows, that they are that darkness, because they are caused by the departure of light, and since their nature is situated in the privation of light, it could not properly acknowledge God as its Maker, since God is not the author of privations, but of things that exist, though these shadows preceded the condition of this visible light according to the opinion of the Greek Fathers. The words of Methodius are: [Greek text]... by which words I see how Comitolus elicits the opinion of Methodius, which he himself ^B refers to, not yet clearly, since the words of Methodius imply otherwise, and not obscurely. For those shadows over the abyss were not created darkness, but they themselves began to exist as darkness through the privation of light. Whence, therefore, is it that those first shadows are these of ours? Whence is it that God was not their effector? Whence is it that God is not the author of privations, but of things that exist? But perhaps here Methodius thinks with Ludovicus Fidelis in his notes on Methodius himself, as we will explain more plainly; and whether Joannes Pius seems to have thought the same in *Heptaplus*, lib. VII, cap. 1: "But the earth was empty and void, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss" [Gen. 1, 2]. God does not create emptiness, He does not create darkness, but, "the earth," he says, "was empty and void, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss"; he does not say these were created, but that they were. And with a few words interposed: "Nor did God make these, but the malice of man, who, wishing [to do so], deprived himself of those goods with which God had endowed him." There are some who in this place want "the name of darkness," which Ludovicus Fidelis in lib. *De mundi struct.*, cap. 7 and 8, does not disapprove, to be understood as the gloomy air deprived of light, from which the angels obtained their origin; for as from the slime of the earth as a pre-existing matter he fashioned man, so from the gloomy air as if from an underlying substrate they think God fashioned the angels, relying on the foundation of Paul, who says: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ" [II Cor. IV, 6]. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, is He who said of the darkness, "Let there be light, and it was made" [Gen. 1, 3]. But this cannot be understood of a simple lack of light, since from this nothing can arise, and therefore, since Paul says "to shine out of darkness," it is necessary that darkness itself, from which the light may come forth, be something. But what, I ask, do you think such darkness to be, if not the air itself covered with darkness, but receptive of light? Which Isaiah very beautifully insinuates in these words, saying, "I am the Lord, and there is none else: I form the light, and create darkness" [Isa. XLV, 7]: by the name of darkness in this place something positive is to be understood. Not

^A that God created a lack of light. However, this opinion seems least of all to be approved, if only for the reason that it attributes a material principle to the angels—who are pure spirits, bound by no body—and thereby makes them corporeal and material. Add to this that the angels are not recorded as having been produced simultaneously with heaven and earth, but after the creation of heaven and earth.

Col. 709, lin. 38. Methodius the Hierosolymitan presbyter, in his *Oratio in Hypapantem*—or Timotheus, under whose name this oration was printed, mutilated at the beginning, in years past—which, God willing, we shall soon provide for you, reader, complete and perfect in all its parts together with other minor works of Methodius and fragments: he, therefore, discussing this same light, begins thus: "Is there any among men who is perfect? He who holds the possession of justice in high regard. For the possession of justice is ever-shining to those who work righteousness, according to the divine saying: 'Light is for the righteous always' [Ps. CXI, 4]. What light? Not that which struggles with the night, is found to be double the sun's rays, and is destroyed in this present age as if it were ^B transitory. 'Light is for the righteous always.' What light? That which dwells beyond the heavens and stands before the Lordly throne. This, the righteous Abraham, discerning, welcomes those who come to him, but those who are not such he sends away to the lightless place of just condemnation. For this reason the crier cries out: 'Light is for the righteous always. But the light of the wicked shall be put out' [Prov. XIII, 9]."

For those who have lived well, immediately after the end of this life, the souls of the saints are carried into the radiance of eternal light, and they enjoy the glory that is their due and possess immense happiness. For at this time they who have lived well and piously rest, being illuminated by it, and await nothing else. Which is most manifest from the words, to confirm which there is no need here to interweave the opinions of the remaining Fathers. Theodoret, in book IX of his *De affectionibus Graecis*, at the end, says: "For in the world, he said, you have tribulation; and blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all evil speaking against you for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for your reward is great in the heavens" [Matt. V, 11-12]. And he pointed out the toils and dangers, but promised that he would render the prizes and crowns after the end of life. But why did God plant the garden in Eden, toward the east, in which he placed the man whom he had fashioned, if he knew that man would immediately transgress, and [that he would be] destined for exile, and that no man after ^A these things would dwell therein again? For if each of those who have lived piously, and of those who have behaved wickedly—after the stadium of this present life—does not return to nothingness, and there is no one who does not still remain, so that he might also inherit paradise and enjoy the holy luxury within it; how will such an ungrateful and wicked assumption not show that he was created in vain, and through the insult offered to him, insult the common Creator, accusing him of doing things that not even a moderate man would perpetrate? But that after the departure from the body, the souls of the saints immediately perform works of mercy. And not only the souls of the saints, but simply every human soul according to its own merit.

You will understand the economy of this. Understand what is said from a clear example: imagine for me at high noon a tent set up for oneself of dense and thick ^C material, and in the darkness improvisedly enclosing oneself. Thus such a thing is unsubstantial. We say, therefore, that this darkness does not exist in essence, and that it is an accident occurring to the air by the privation of light. Similarly, suppose that darkness there [was] not pre-existing, but followed upon other things. But the bright, and the light, and that which is above, all these are with God; the dim, however, and the darkness, and the things below, [are] with matter. From the matter, then, from which they were separated, the sun and the moon—the part outside the world—were driven away, and that is a fire which is cauterizing, yet dark and lightless, similar to night. For when the light is poured forth... Then, however, not by solar motion, but by that first light being poured forth [and] again being contracted according to the measure defined ^D by God, day came into being, and night followed in turn. Therefore, not without reason did Africanus call that day an intelligible day.

*Sed Eustathius magna Ecclesiæ presbyter eodem Photio referente pro veritate sumpta contentione probavit,* whose words I would most gladly transcribe here if there were an abundance of books, so that I might suppress the stubbornness of those who are so blind in an open and manifest matter that they shamelessly strive to pour darkness onto others as well. For who could bear the portents of the most wicked men regarding this? That is, that the souls of the wicked are converted into demons, into lions, wolves, and other beasts, just as those of the righteous migrate. That paradise and the supernal Jerusalem are situated in the third heaven, and neither in heaven nor on earth. But a more accurate explanation of these things we shall hand down in the treatise which we are writing on the differences between the Greeks and the Latins. Now, let these things be sufficient.

LEONIS ALLATII

George Syncellus: ^A On the first day, he who created all things on the earth, the Artificer, named the firmament God, as it were a sphere other than the first, which is without stars. Africanus says it is intelligible, because first the proto-created light, which was diffused, had to be organized.

Ibid., lin. 54. "Whence also in the measurement." He no longer called it day and night, but assigned the whole naming to that which prevails. You may find this custom even in all of Scripture in the measurement of time, where days are numbered, but not nights along with the days. The nomadic tribes of Libya do not count the time by days, but by nights.

Basilius hom. 2, And he demonstrates this by various testimonies of divine Scripture. The Nomads themselves, even the Libyan race, in the enumeration of time do not use days, as Scripture does, but nights. Nicolaus Damascenus in Stobaeus: that the Britons and Gauls observe the same thing, and William Camden relates the cause of this in *Britannia*.

Col. 712, lin. 1. God the firmament. Zoroaster and Damascius postulate circles of various firmaments, and call the first of them the empyrean, three following ones ethereal, and the three last material. Ludovicus Fidelis, *De mundi structura*, lib. III, c. 1, in his explanation of these words, says that the firmament is twofold: one, which they call the prime mover, which by its own motion moves all the circles, and is moved by none, the highest of all the celestial circles, which within its own circumference encompasses the rest of the circles, which they call the empyrean, or the seat of the blessed: ^B because those who reside in it are continually set ablaze by divine fervors; and this is, by antonomasia, called the heaven of heaven, or the heaven of heavens, or the heaven of heavens, for among the Hebrews, heaven lacks the singular number, whence among them "heavens" are sometimes used for heaven, and sometimes for heavens. But the firmament is called so because of the unique firmness of itself, because it is consistent by its own nature, and always firm, of which mention is made here. The other is the firmament which moves and is moved at the same time, in which the luminaries are reported by Moses to have been produced on the fourth day. But this opinion, abhorrent to the principles of true philosophy, is rejected as false, and is contrary to the experiments themselves.

Ibid., lin. 3. And it has been said to them. Basil hom. 3: It has been said, then, by some before us that this is not the generation of a second heaven, but an explanation of the former, because there in the summary the creation of heaven and earth was handed down, but here the Scripture is handing down to us the manner, how each thing was done, in greater detail; from which this mutilated passage may be corrected.

Ibid., lin. 5. Basilius hom. 3: ^C And it has been said to them...

Ibid., lin. 7. But we say. Basil hom. 3: We say that, since another name and a specific need for a second heaven has been handed down, this one is different from the one made in the beginning, being of steadier nature, and providing a special need for the whole. And the eyelid having shone of the second day, he wisely fashioned the second heaven. As for "he named the firmament," it stood because its body is compact, and it does not have an appearance that is thin or rare, like the waters from which it derived its composition, and it was named heaven. And God parted them.

Ibid., lin. 8. Concerning the use of the firmament, there is more in the books of the astrologers and philosophers. Ludovicus Fidelis, lib. III, cap. 2, says: as God planted for man a terrestrial paradise, in which Adam was to live happily with his entire posterity, so today God made the firmament a place suitable for the happiness of the angels: by this very manner of acting, designating the excellence of the place; for it is not read that he made any place for the brutes, or any living creatures, but for men and angels alone; and just as man, because of sin, was made a perpetual exile, and excluded from the paradise of pleasure, just so are the evil angels separated from the firmament, never to return thither.

Ibid., lin. 10. Being of a steadier nature. Everyone thinks the body of the firmament was created solid and firm; it pleases Augustine, lib. II, *De Gen. ad litteram*, c. 10, that it is so named on account of its firmness, or on account of the impassable boundary of the upper and lower waters. Philo, *De mundi opificio*, says it was so called as a corporeal thing, since a body is naturally firm and solid, having three dimensions. John Zonaras, *Annalium* tom. I: It was called a firmament because its body is massive, and has not a thin or rare nature, according to the waters from which it obtained its composition, which was also named heaven. Ambrosius Catharinus in *Genesim* thinks it is the eighth sphere, because in it all the inerrant stars are fixed and firm, and do not wander with various motions; Benedictus Pererius has another exposition of this word in his *Commentary on Genesis*, lib. I. In explaining the matter of it, however, they do not agree. Theodoretus, *Quaestiones in Genesim*: Wherefore, he says, it was called a firmament, because it had been concreted from water, which was previously fluid and liquefiable, most vehemently thickened and most strongly hardened. Josephus relates the same in *Antiquit. Judaic.*, cap. 4; Gennadius, Severianus in the catena on this passage, with whom Bede agrees; and he confirms it with the words of Peter related by Clement in book *Recognit.* Hugo, *Annotationes in Genesim*, cap. 6, and others. Basil mocks this opinion and calls it childish, to think that heaven was from concreted water; and he judges that the firmament was fashioned from a certain thin matter, such as is the aerial, yet vehemently thickened and compressed, whom Ambrose follows.

Ibid., lin. 11. What these waters are that are above the firmament, has long been sought and disputed. Albertus Magnus 2, distinct. 14, articul. 1; Egidius in *Hexaem.* cap. 14; Catharinus and others explain the Scripture thus, that no...

^A firmament be understood as the starry heaven above which the waters are said to be, that is, the ninth and tenth sphere bearing an analogy to water, which are translucent on all sides and have no star within them; or that by the firmament the air is designated, and those waters are called waters which fall as rain to the earth, and those that are above the earth are separated by the heaven, that is, the air. And this view Augustine appears to embrace in *De Genesi ad litt.*, lib. 11, cap. 4; and Jerome, *epist.* 83, *ad Oceanum*; but it is refuted by Francisco Valesio in *De sacra philosophia*, cap. 1. Origen, as Epiphanius relates in his *Epistle to John of Jerusalem*, and Jerome in his *epistle to Pammachius*, said that the waters which are above the firmament are not waters, but holy angels; and that the waters which are under the firmament are the evil demons who fell from heaven. Regarding this opinion, which Epiphanius and Jerome condemned, Basil in *Hexaem.*, hom. 3, omitting the name of Origen, puts it forth as follows: ^B "To us, moreover, there is some argument with those of the Church regarding the separated waters, who by way of anagogy and higher meanings have taken refuge in allegories, saying that spiritual and bodiless powers are indicated figuratively by these waters; and that the superior ones have remained above the firmament, while the wicked ones have remained below in the terrestrial and material places. Because of this, they say that the waters above the heavens also praise God, that is, the good powers who, by the purity of their ruling faculty, are worthy to offer the fitting hymn to the Creator; while the waters under the heavens are the spiritual powers of wickedness, having fallen from their natural height to the depth of malice, which, being tumultuous, factious, and surging with the clamor of the passions, are called a sea because of the changeable and unstable nature of their volitional movements. But having cast aside such notions as the comparisons of dreams and old wives' tales, let us understand water as water, and the separation that occurred under the firmament according to the reason provided." ^C Then also the all-diffusing water-nature, And having divided the abysses, and of these the most excellent, Having lightened them aloft to an unthought-of height, And having left that which is on earth, he placed it in the midst of them. The heaven as a barrier, as a firm wall. And of these the most excellent and of these that which is above. And does anyone doubt that the aether is fiery?

Valesius, in the place already mentioned, says that heaven, which for this reason most people call crystalline, is aqueous, consisting of a certain celestial water that resembles water in its purity, yet not in coldness or humidity, just as the heaven and the igneous stars are composed of a certain celestial fire which is of a more excellent nature than the elemental, resembling it only in brightness, not in heat and dryness. Thus, the names of fire and water are not applied properly to both, but by a certain analogy, so that there is a double fire and a double water according to analogy, namely, elemental and celestial. Nevertheless, the opinion of many Fathers, just as it was Eustathius’s, was that these waters are true waters, of the same kind and form as these inferior ones. And therefore they think these waters were placed by God above the heaven, so that by the proximity of their innate coldness they might diminish and temper the stellar fire and the heat of the aethereal axis. Thus Clemens Romanus, *lib. Recognit.*; Justin Martyr, *quæst.* 93, *ad Orthodoxos*; Basilius, *hom. 3 in Hexaem.*; Epiphanius in *Epist. ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum*; Chrysostom, *hom.* 4, and in *psal.* CXLVIII; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catech.* 9; Theodoret in *Gen.*, *quæst.* 11; Procopius in *Genes.*, cap. 1; Hippolytus and Severianus in *catena*; Euthymius in *psal.* CII; Hilary in *psal.* CXXXVI; Ambrose, *lib. Hexaem.*, cap. 3 and 4; Jerome, *Epist. ad Oceanum*; Augustine, *lib. 11 De Gen. ad litt.*, cap. 5, and *lib. 11 De civitate Dei*, last chapter, and in *psal.* CII; Dracontius Hispanus, Marius Victor, *De opere sex dierum*; Drepanius Florus, in the *Hymn of the Three Children*; Cassiodorus, Haymo, Bruno, and others whom Martin Delrio praises in *cap. 1 Genes.* ^D Most foolishly, therefore, does Calvin blather that this opinion is alien to common sense, when it has been received by so many Fathers, and those most learned, with one voice; and that it is altogether incredible, when Holy Scripture implies it in very clear words, and elsewhere—of which the authority is greater, according to Augustine, than all the capacity of human genius. And just as he raves foolishly in these matters, so also his faith is accused, and he is refuted as an impostor and a liar, when he knowingly lies by writing that Catholics wish them to be held for the faith as true waters above the heavens, when other Catholic men of the greatest erudition have publicly and openly defended a different opinion which does not at all agree with that one. It is the custom and madness of heretics to accuse you of things you have said, and to refute them even if they are very true, and to impose upon you things you have not said, so that they may again seize an opportunity for accusation and censure.

Col. 712, lin. 14. "And that it be above." Constantinus Manasses in *Annal.*: [In the second verse I do not understand what is intended. I correct: For thus we shall attain both the truth of God and the mind of the author. But to what end those waters which are above the heavens?] Procopius and Theodoret, lest the sun, moon, and stars, being indeed igneous, dissolve the heaven which is, as it were, congealed from waters; Bede, to temper the heat arising from the force and motion of the stars; Justin, to press down the firmament lest it be carried upward; Jerome Oleaster, that in the deluge of Noah they might overwhelm the earth through the cataracts. Others, that they might reverberate the rays of the sun and moon and reflect them downward to the earth. Others, for the adornment of the universe, and so that this matrix of the heavens might exist as an index of creation, which the heavens would always behold above them, and for the pleasure of the saints, that their eyes might feed on these crystalline waters. Or that, just as this water is to our air, those waters might serve the aether, which is in the empyrean heaven. I leave aside the trifles of others. Ibid., lin. 18. "And the aether is fiery." Basil, *hom.*:

^A Since the vapours are gathered about the summit, and the air is condensed by the compression of the spirits, when the moisture which has until then been dispersed in the cloud in the form of vapour and in a fine state approaches itself, drops are formed and, carried downward by the weight of the bodies thus gathered together, they fall. And this is the generation of rain.

"And snow is from the waters." When the moisture is frothed up by the violence of the winds, beaten back, and then, having been chilled to the extreme, is frozen through and through, the cloud being broken, the snow is carried down. But as regards what is thought of as phenomena: just as Anaxagoras contradicted the idea that snow is white, arguing that snow is frozen water, and water is black, and therefore snow is black. ^B

"And thunder is according to this account." For the Scripture referred to thunder as a solidification, because of the hardness and resistance of the spirit enclosed in the cavities of the clouds, and because those noises which produce the thunders are violently exploded. What philosophical account will you give me regarding lightnings and thunders, O you who argue about thunders from the earth, and who do not shine even with small sparks of the truth? What vapours will you blame as the creators of the cloud, or what condensation of air, or compression or rupture of the thinnest clouds? So that the compression might produce for you the lightning, and the rupture might produce the thunder; and what spirit is that which is straitened, and then having no outlet, so that it might lighten when compressed, and thunder when it is ruptured? And so thunder according to this account becomes a result of the hardness and the resistance of the spirit. ^{C D}

Ibid., lin. 27. Basil, *hom.* 3: "But if it is thicker, showers and storm-clouds occur." From which thus complete the omission: "And so the rain is produced." [index: entries preserved ]. What the aether is, is not a unanimous opinion among all; some have thought it to be ignited air, others heaven. Porphyry and before him Orpheus called the mind and intellect Jove; Aristotle, lib. *De Caelo*, cap. 3, and in the first *Meteor.*, and also the book *De Mundo*—if Aristotle is indeed the author of that book—to Alexander, calls the aether the substance of the heaven and the stars, an element different from the four other sublunary ones, divine and exempt from corruption, though not by that name, because as it is igneous, it burns. But [he represents] it as that which is always running. And lib. 1 *De Caelo* he rebukes Anaxagoras because he called the aether "fire," which it is well known that others did as well. For they derive "aether" from *aei thein* (to run always), not from *aithein* (to burn), in which opinion Cicero in his *De natura deorum* also seems to have gone; and Phornutus likewise in *De natura deorum*, chapter *De Caelo*: Eustathius, however, here understands by aether the fourth element, namely fire, which would consume the whole earth by its power and faculty, were it not restrained both by divine command and by the aerial waters.

Ibid., lin. 31. Basil, *hom.* 3: George Pisides in *De mundi opificio*; Pliny book II, chapter 60: "Hail is produced by frozen rain, and snow by the same moisture more softly congealed, but frost from cold dew." But let us explain this in brief speech. If humid vapour is carried up into the middle region of the air and is condensed, and does not then freeze, rain is produced; or it freezes before it is converted into water, and snow is produced from cold that is more intense than rain; or after it has been resolved into water, hail is produced. If the vapour subsides into the lowest region of the air, it either freezes and frost is produced, or it does not freeze, and dew is produced. Anaxagoras wished for snow to be most white, yet black, contrary to his senses, because it was congealed water. Sextus Empiricus, *Pyrrhon., Hypotyp.* lib. 1, cap. 15. Which argument can be refuted by that alone, that it changes the terms in the propositions, which if it did not change, it would collapse of itself and be ridiculous: he formulated it thus: Nix (snow) is congealed water; water is black, therefore nix is black: whereas it ought to be formulated thus: Nix is congealed water, congealed water is black, then it would certainly follow, therefore nix is black. But who would concede that congealed water is black? Since he would not even affirm water itself, even if not congealed, to be black.

Ibid., lin. 31. Basil, *hom.* 3: Gregory Nazianzen, *De theologia*: From which I thus restore the passage of Eustathius: "Famous is the opinion of those who have thought that thunder is produced by the extinction of fire intercepted by the clouds. And just as red-hot iron immersed in water hisses, so that fire, or an ignited star, as Epicurus thought, having fallen into the cloud, excites a noise, thus in the clouds..."

^A ...the sand as a boundary for the sea? It is bridled by the sand, which is the weakest of all things; yet it is unbearable in its violence. The Creator ordained the bounds for the sea’s surges, and the deep, flowing currents are bridled by the shores. And a certain amount of sand serves as a barrier between the land and the sea. For the sea is not permitted to harm the neighboring land, and the raging current, having threatened the dry land with a great incursion, retreats to itself. ^B Into human life and into those who have fallen asleep. Who is it that sets sand as a boundary for the sea? By fear of whom is it bridled, made to retreat, tamed, and kept within its own limits, and not allowed to pass by its liquid doors? Rather, as if it were holding a bit in its mouth, carried by the command: it rises up against the neighboring land, but then, retreating into itself, it turns back, foams forth its mist, mingles with the spray against the shores, and retreats backward, acknowledging its subordinate form. Yesterday evening, walking, O friend, along the seashore, and gazing intently at it, I saw a certain manifestation of divine power, and the artistry of wise knowledge—if it is indeed proper to call such a thing art. For as that Homeric verse speaks: ^C *As two winds stir up the fish-filled sea,* / *Boreas and Zephyrus, coming suddenly from Thrace;* / *Dark waves gather together in a mass,* / *And they cast much seaweed out of the sea.* / Just so it seemed to me yesterday. For I saw waves like the peaks of mountains, and, so to speak, reaching to heaven itself. From that point, I expected nothing else but for the whole earth to be flooded; and I had no place to flee in my mind, and I was imagining Noah’s ark. But it was not as I thought; rather, as the sea was arched, it was again resolved into itself, not passing beyond its own place, as if frightened by some divine command. And just as some servant, often, when forced to do something against his will by his master, is persuaded by the command through fear, but does not dare to speak of what he suffers while acting against his will, yet grumbles within himself, being filled with a certain anger: so it seemed to me, [the sea] was as if angered, and containing its rage within itself, and holding itself in check, not wishing to make its anger manifest to the Master. Wherefore, I translated it thus: Yesterday, while the sun was setting, as I walked, O friend, near the seashore, and cast my eyes intently upon it, [I beheld] a certain superiority of divine virtue. ^D

^A And it was as if two globes were being fashioned, but all things were so disposed that from these two, separate yet touching, one single round body might be formed, and one most perfect globe, though not of geometrical roundness. For that which abounded in waters was enclosed in the caverns of the earth and received into the deepest valleys, while that which emerged upon the earth above the waters rose up, stretched to the heights of the overhanging mountains; and thus, equally on all sides, earth and waters are sustained and sustain, neither being exceeded nor exceeding. Yet it may happen that, just as one part of the earth is more prominent than another, and another more depressed, and yet we do not deny that the earth is round, so also one region and place may be lower than the sea itself, such that if a passage were open, it would be submerged by the waters, while another is higher and more prominent; just as Aristotle notes regarding the region of the Egyptians and the Red Sea as an absolute certainty in the first book of the *Meteorology*, the last chapter; and thus I think the authors I named above are to be understood, and that all doubts and arguments brought up on both sides are solved with the greatest ease: and the divine wisdom and goodness are more clearly manifested, which disposed all things in weight and measure.

Ibid., line 49. "That this is true. For what prevented the Red Sea from coming over the whole of Egypt, which is lower than itself, and joining the sea that lies adjacent to Egypt, if it were not curbed by the command of the Creator?" For that Egypt is lower than the Red Sea, those who wished to join the seas together—the Egyptian [sea] and the Indian [sea], in which is the Red Sea—convinced us by their endeavor. For this reason did Sesostris the Egyptian, who first began the attempt, and Darius the Mede, who wished later to carry it out, desist. The event itself shows this: for those whom we say are the most ancient of men, the Egyptians, their whole country appears to be, and is, the work of the river. ^B And this is evident to one looking at the country itself, and the things concerning the Red Sea are sufficient proof. For one of the kings attempted to dig this through. For there would have been no small benefits for them if the whole place became navigable. "For what prevented..." For what prevented the Red Sea from coming over the whole of Egypt, which is lower than itself, and joining the sea that lies adjacent to Egypt, if it were not curbed by the command of the Creator? It is said that Sesostris was the first among the ancients to attempt it, but he found the sea to be higher than the land. Wherefore both he before, and Darius later, ceased digging, so that the stream of the river might not be corrupted by the mixing of the sea. ^C And I say that it is implausible that there was no canal before the Trojan War. But they say that Sesostris, having attempted to make it, desisted, having supposed the surface of the sea to be higher. And the canal was cut at first by Sesostris before the Trojan War, while others say it was [begun] only by the son of Psammetichus, who then departed from this life; later, however, it was [continued] by Darius the First, who took up the work thereafter. And he too, persuaded by a false opinion, abandoned the work when it was already near completion. For he was persuaded that the surface of the sea was higher. ^D

than the Red Sea of Egypt, and that if the whole isthmus between them were cut through, Egypt would be flooded by the sea. Necho was the son of Psammetichus, and he reigned over Egypt; he was the first who attempted the canal leading to the Red Sea, which Darius the Persian dug a second time. ^A And not another from this. That is to say, let not another be produced from this one, but let the collection remain in the first collection. For they were many. Afterward, he who said "let the waters be gathered into one gathering" showed you that the waters were many, scattered in many places. For the hollows of the mountains, broken through by deep ravines, contained the collection of the waters. ^B It signifies the bays. But the systems of waters, that is to say the bays which were left behind according to their own shape by the surrounding land, the Lord called seas: the Northern Sea, the Southern Sea, the Eastern Sea, and another one, the Western. And the names of the seas are distinct: the Euxine Sea, the Propontis, the Hellespont, the Aegean and Ionian, the Sardinian Sea, and the Sicilian, and another, the Tyrrhenian, and myriads of names of seas, which it would be long and full of ignorance to enumerate with precision. Who could find words to describe adequately the seas consuming manifold bays, and in return yielding up from their midst small and larger islands, and creating straits in the narrow spaces between them? Everywhere the rush of tireless Ocean is borne, One in being, but yoked with many names. For the one near the extremity of the Zephyr, Is called the Western Atlas; but above toward the North, Where the children of the fierce Arimaspians dwell, They call it the Frozen and Slow Sea. Others call it the Dead Sea, because of the dim Sun. For it shines more slowly over that sea, And is always thickened by shadowy clouds. But where it first appears to men, They call it the Pontic and Indian swell of the sea. And near the South they call it the Erythraean and Ethiopian. There, much of the uninhabited land extends, Parched by the scorching suns. ^C And not the casual ones of the waters. For it is not to be supposed that we must produce for you the swampy ones and those gathered from rainfall, and that you should think to refute our argument through these; but he called the one gathering the greatest and most complete convergence of the waters. For indeed wells are collections of waters made by hand, and it is the hollowing of the earth where the seeped moisture flows in. The appellation of the gathering, therefore, does not signify the casual accumulations of water, but the prominent and greatest one, in which the whole element is displayed all at once. As for the fire. Just as fire, even when fragmented into small parts for this purpose here, is poured out all at once upon the ether; and the air is indeed divided into small parts, and yet it has encompassed the region around the earth all at once; so also in the case of water, even if there are some small divided constitutions, yet it is one gathering that has separated the whole element from the rest. For it is the fountain of that around the earth. And let the sea be added as the mother of all water, and indeed of all moisture; it is evident that there is no other cause for these things being a part of this, other than the sea; and it does not possess the moist element only as a mother, in the manner already spoken of. And all the earth is porous. First, that the water of the sea is the fountain of all moisture around the earth, this being distributed into the hidden pores, as the spongy and cavernous parts of the continents indicate, under which the rushing sea, flowing through like a canal, when it is left behind in crooked and upward-trending passages, is pushed by the air that is emptying it, and is borne out having broken through the surface, and becomes drinkable, being cured of its saltiness from the filtration. ^D

^A And having taken on warmer qualities from the metals along the outlet, it becomes, for the most part, boiling and fiery from the same cause that moves it. This can be observed in many places on the islands and in many coastal regions; and indeed, even in the interior, certain places adjacent to river waters—to compare the small with the great—suffer similar effects. Why then have I said this? Because the earth, through invisible pores, is a sort of conduit for the water that filters back from the wellsprings of the sea.

^B Furthermore, regarding the waters of the air: Basil, Homily 4, says: "It is beautiful, and because it is an origin and a fountain for the aerial waters, being warmed by the sun's ray, and depositing the thin part of the water through vapors, which, having been drawn up to the upper region and then cooled because it has reached a higher place than the reflection of the rays from the ground, and at the same time because the shade from the cloud intensifies the cooling, becomes rain and fattens the earth." Besides those mentioned, there are showers, and dews, and snows, and clouds themselves that generate these, and whatever first gathers in the upper region and then descends to the earth from there.

^C For the noise of the sea. For that voice then, and that first command, became as it were a law of nature, and remained in the earth, providing to it the power to beget and to bring forth fruit from that time on. In order that that first command might become a school for nature toward the sequence that follows. Understand the Word of God running through creation, and then beginning, and working even until now, and passing through to the end until the world is completed. What do you say, heretic? Do you see, instead of the casting of seed, the command of the Word taking place? And how do you speak of the mystery of the virginal birth as doubtful? For the things that now are not born without seed, to these the voice of Him who calls to birth once converged; and the law of the command imitated the manner of conception, and by one voice all things were being fashioned. And He who then fashioned creation, and provided seed without seed to all things, He Himself, having been fashioned from the rational earth, emerged—without seed—the [seed] planted in the flesh, the root of death with the blade...

^A of the virgin birth cutting it away. For growth leads the way. First in the genesis of growing things is the shoot, then, when the growths emerge slightly, it becomes an herb, then, when it has increased, it is grass, as growing things are gradually articulated ^B and proceed until the perfection of the seed. [It] begets an air that comes together into one, and air begets water, and water earth, and from the earth comes the same cycle of change up to the fire, from where it began to change. And fruits and most root-plants take their beginning of genesis from seeds; having borne fruit and reached maturity, they make their resolution back into the seed, as nature accomplishes its path from and to the same [source]. For a warm moisture. When the seed falls into the earth, having a proportionate amount of moisture and warmth. Becoming porous and filled with many openings, having grasped the neighboring earth, it draws toward itself things akin and of the same nature. Falling into the pores and slipping around the finest particles of the earth, it further widens its masses, so that it roots downward, ^C while upward it sprouts stalks equal in number to the roots being put forth. And as the growth is always being warmed, it draws the moisture through the roots of the earth as much as is moderate, and this it distributes into the stalk, and the bark, and the husks of the grain, and the grain itself, and the awns. ^D And there is a root, by which nourishment is brought in. And the stalk of the grain. How the stalk of the grain is girded at the joints, so that it might easily bear the weight of the ears as if by certain fastenings, when, full of fruit, they incline toward the earth! For this reason, the oat is empty throughout, being burdened by nothing in its head, but nature has secured the grain with these fastenings. By storing the kernel in a husk, so that it might not be easily snatched by seed-eating birds, through the covering of the awns, like needles, it wards off injuries from small animals. Nature has also secured all fruits and seeds for the genesis and succession of the species, [covering them] with scales, or certain moist or woody bodies, or skins; just as if in a chest, it hid them away for the avoidance of cold or heat, or certain harmful animals. And it did not even leave the covering itself entirely useless, but prepared it for food. And if [it] grew together with the nutrient [plants]. And immediately the poisonous plants were extended along with the nutrient ones, along with the grain the hemlock, and along with the rest of the food, hellebore and aconite, and mandrake, and the juice of the poppy.

^A Hellebore, while being a poison to men, is [food] for starlings, [as is] hemlock. ^B Indeed, hemlock fattens quails, and henbane fattens swine, which delight in eating even salamanders. ^C For hemlock is consumed by starlings, which escape the damage from the poison due to their physical constitution. Because they have slender passages from their heart, they are able to digest what has been swallowed before the coldness from it can settle into their vital organs. And they eat hellebore. Hellebore is food for quails, which avoid the damage due to the peculiar temperament [of their bodies]. And quails feed on hellebore. ^D By means of mandrake. Furthermore, these very things are sometimes useful to us as well. For by means of mandrake, physicians induce sleep; and with opium they soothe the sharp pains of the body; and by now some have allayed the madness of desires with hemlock, and have dislodged many chronic diseases with hellebore. Just as they say the leaf of the mandrake is useful for sores when mixed with barley meal, while the root, when yellowed and steeped in vinegar, is useful for erysipelas, and for gout, and for sleep and love charms. They give it in wine or in vinegar. They cut it into tablets like radishes, and having strung them up in must, they hung them over smoke. For in truth wine, while it waters the souls, on the one hand puts sorrows to sleep, just as the mandrake puts men to sleep, and on the other hand it rouses affections, just as oil rouses a flame.

^A ...making men in the animal kingdom subject to the falling sickness [epilepsy]. ^B Regarding the sacred disease... [Plutarch adds the goat; Jacobus Delecampius testifies that he has seen dogs, cats, and rams die of that disease; Hippocrates reports that goats and sheep are troubled by the disease; Apsyrtus [mentions] horses; Brodaeus, in book III, chapter 23, [mentions] hawks and jackdaws; but Sextus Empiricus, in *Pyrrhonian Hypotyposes*, book I, reports not that hellebore, but hemlock fattens quails, just as henbane [fattens] swine.] ^C ...[full consideration of the mandrake herb can be found in Pliny, book XXV, chapter 15, in which its use in medicines is explained; its somniferous power he explains thus: "The leaves are preserved more effectively in brine; otherwise the juice of the fresh leaves is a plague: so too are its harmful powers. They also cause heaviness by their scent: although in some lands they are eaten, yet for the uninitiated they cause loss of speech through their excessive odor. Indeed, they die from a too-large draught. The somniferous power is proportionate to the strength of those drinking it. A medium draught is one cyathus. It is also drunk against snakes, and before incisions and punishments so that they might not be felt. Because of this, it is enough for some to have sought sleep through its scent." It is drunk also in place of hellebore, [in the amount of] two obols in mulsum. And Theophrastus in *Historia Plantarum*, book IX, chapter 10...] ^D [In which passage of Xenophon the translator was hallucinating, and Pierius Valerianus, in book LVIII of his work, was deceived by the version of the mandrake, as was very well noted by Michael Gislerius, a man second to none in interpreting the sacred Scriptures, whom I have always greatly admired and whose words I have always received for my own greatest use and benefit, and to this day I continue to receive, whom for many years to the utility of the Catholic Church, by the prayers of all good men]

^A May God preserve him safe and sound, filled with most learned, solid doctrine, piety, and true religion, in his Commentaries on the Song of Songs, chap. VII, verse 13, first exposition. Regarding this same matter, Dioscorides [writes] the same, and from it comes the proverb in Lucian in his *Timon*, "you sleep/you are idle," and in Demosthenes in the IV *Philippic*, "but we cannot even be roused, but like those who have drunk mandragora, if any such drug exists, so we resemble men." See Rodiginus, book XVII, chapter 24. Note that Theophrastus says that mandragora conduces to loves and philters, and besides Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Epiphanius in the *Physiologus*, and others bear witness to the same; for thus you will understand that passage in Genesis, but more on this in our exercises. What herbalists prescribe for cutting and collecting mandragora is found in Theophrastus, *Historia plantarum*, lib. IX, c. 9, and Pliny, lib. XXV, cap. 13. More on this herb and its virtues [is found in] Levinus Lemnius in *Explicatione herbar. biblic.*, chap. 2.

Col. 716, line 10. *And for opium for the severe [pains].* Regarding the preparation and use of opium in medicines, [see] Pliny, *Hist. nat.*, lib. XX, cap. 18; he attributes to it not only a soporific power, but also a deadly one if consumed in larger quantities, and Galen [does so] in many places.

Ibid., line 13. *And all things in one moment of time.* Basil, hom. IV: “All things in one moment of time, not having existed before, passed from non-existence into being, with each thing defined by its own property, separated from what is heterogenous by the clearest differences, and recognized by its own individual character.”

Ibid., line 17. *And of these, some are.* In trees, as in animals, there is a certain species and form—which our author calls "character"—by which they are known, and distinguished from others, and are able to exercise the work of their own nature—of this there never has been, nor ever will be, any doubt. This form can be taken from all parts, for while they vary in one, even if they agree in others, they will still not be judged to be of the same species. Hence some have broad leaves, others narrow, others serrated, others expanded in a different way. Thus [it is] with the bark, branches, roots, fruits, and others. We have, however, the sum of their genera from Theophrastus, lib. I, *De histor. plant.*, cap. 6, and elsewhere: for some of them are urban, some wild, some fruit-bearing, some sterile, some flowering, others lacking flowers, some perpetually green, some shedding leaves. Pliny also, lib. XVI, cap. 18, proceeds through the differences of trees, and cap. 19: “Furthermore, the leaves fall from some trees; others flourish with an evergreen head, which difference must necessarily precede.” For some trees are entirely wild, others more urban: which it pleases us here to distinguish by names. Therefore, “tame” [trees]—those which help men more humanely by their fruit, or by some gift, or by their shade—may not improperly be called urban. ^{B C D}

Col. 716, line 11. *And for hellebore for chronic [conditions].* Regarding the species, figures, power, faculty, and use of hellebore, read Pliny, lib. XXV, c. 5; Dioscorides, lib. IV, c. 150 and 151. Sextus Empiricus, *Pyrrhon. Hypot.* lib. I, cap. 14, notes that hellebore, if one eats it thin and woolly, brings death, but if thick, not so. [He notes] that a certain Rufinus near Chalcis was accustomed to drinking it without any harm.

Ibid., line 20. *And the olive is an evergreen.* Theophrastus, lib. I, *De hist. plant.*, chapter 15: "Of the tame ones, the evergreen are the olive, palm, bay, myrtle, the pine genus, the cypress; of the wild ones, the silver fir, pine, juniper, smilax, thuja, and what the Arcadians call the 'phellodrys,' linden, cedar, pitch-pine, tamarisk, box, kermes oak, wild [olive], wayfaring tree, philyke, anarke." These.

^A are the trees that grow around Olympus: the strawberry tree, the arbutus, the turpentine tree, the wild olive, the laurel. It seems that the strawberry tree and the wild vine shed their leaves below, but keep them on the tips of their branches, constantly pushing out new branches. Pliny from Theophrastus, *Hist. nat.*, lib. 16, ch. 20: "Of the cultivated kind, the olive, laurel, palm, myrtle, cypress, pine, ivy, and rhododendron do not shed their leaves"; and ch. 21: "Of the wild kind, the leaves do not fall from the fir, larch, pitch-pine, juniper, cedar, turpentine tree, box, holm oak, holly, cork oak, yew, and tamarisk; between both kinds is the *adrachne* in Greece, and the *unedo* everywhere. For the rest of the trees, the leaves fall, except at the tips." And the author of the *Geoponica*: "Evergreen trees, which never shed their leaves in winter, are the palm, citron, fir, laurel, olive, cypress, carob, pine, kermes oak, box, myrtle, cedar, willow, and juniper." Wreaths of palm and olive provide marriages for freeborn women because of their braiding. And they also call children "long-lived" because of this evergreen quality—the son [being compared to] the palm, the daughter to the olive. ^B Being long-lived, firm-leaved, and reliably evergreen, [it signifies] that the glory of the victors must remain immortal and ageless; it is the "ever-living" [symbol]. For around Elephantine, they say not even the vines or the fig trees shed their leaves. And what the Arcadians call "phellodrys" (cork-oak). The tree which the Arcadians call *phellodrys* has such a nature that, to put it simply, it is between the kermes oak and the oak. And some suppose it to be a female kermes oak, for which reason, where the kermes oak does not grow, they use this for wagons and similar things, just as they do around Lacedaemon and Elis. And the Dorians call the tree *agria* (wild). It is softer than the kermes oak, but harder and denser than the oak. And ^C the color, when the wood is barked, is whiter than the kermes oak, but more winelike than the oak; its leaves resemble both, but are larger than the kermes oak's and smaller than the oak's. Its fruit is smaller in size than the kermes oak's, equal to the smallest acorns; and it is sweeter than the kermes oak's, but bitter compared to the oak's. Some call the fruit of the kermes oak and this one *akulon* (acorn-like), but that of the oak a *balanos* (acorn). It has a pith more visible than the kermes oak. And the *phellodrys* has a nature of this kind. I could gather more from others concerning trees of which mention is made here, [noting] what is said and what doubted, but we are writing notes on Eustathius, not a history of herbs. It suffices to have confirmed or explained his sayings with the sayings of others.

^B "The rose without the thorn." Except that the rose was then without the thorn. Later, the thorn was paired with the beauty of the flower, so that we might have irritation lying near at hand to the pleasure of enjoyment, mindful of the sin for which the earth was condemned to bring forth thorns and thistles for us. ^C "To the remaining remedy, he has recourse to the knowledge of sins." ^D There is a pious and prudent warning, namely that man, having cast his gaze upon the rose, should immediately call to mind his first parent and his own fall; and, observing the calamity into which he fell because of sin, should groan in his heart and grieve inwardly, and seek the aid of his Creator, and beware. For the continuous memory of sins is a remedy not only apt for obtaining pardon, but it renders a man less inclined to perpetrate wickedness, as Chrysostom writes in his *Epistle to the Hebrews*, ch. 12, hom. 31, and in the *Catena* on the book of *Jeremiah*. And Augustine does not dissent, *lib. 1, De Gen. contra Manichæos, c. 13*: "Because of the sin of man, the earth was cursed, not so that it itself should feel punishment, as it is without sense, but so that it might always place the crime of human sin before the eyes of men, by which they might be warned to turn at last from sins and convert to the commandments of God." But as for the herbs, etc. This opinion does not, however, please Pererius, *book 1 on Genesis*. For he cannot be brought to believe that the rose was made without thorns before the sin. For God created such things as they are according to their own nature, nor did Adam’s sin change their properties and conditions, since not even those things which are true according to the nature of man were changed by his sin. Indeed, the rose being born among thorns follows the natural constitution and generation of the rose. Wherefore, even if these were harmful to human nature before the sin of Adam, they would not have been a punishment to him had he not sinned, but he would have been so constituted in mind and body that he could most easily discern and avoid these deadly things. It is true that God created such things as they are according to nature. It is of a sound mind to confess that the properties and natures of things were not altered by the sin of the first parents. It is established that, before the sin, with no

^A guilt and no penalty were attached to either body or soul. It is truer that Adam was then so constituted in soul and body that he both knew what was destructive and was able to avoid it. May we, therefore, affirm that the rose was born with thorns, and that to be born among thorns follows the natural constitution and generation of the rose? We must seek the nature and natural constitution of the rose elsewhere. That which is implanted and given by nature, and follows a natural constitution, is a law which cannot be violated by any human ingenuity, by any vicissitude of time, by any variety of circumstances, or by any violence of nature itself, if that were possible; but it always follows the same thing to the very end. But if you take it away, or attempt to transmute it into something else, you will destroy the thing itself and change it into another. We also know that there is doubt whether this could be done by divine power and faculty, and they conclude that the nature of the thing forbids it. But in our own times, we see by the industry of farmers that roses are so cultivated that they sprout without thorns, and are no less beautiful and no less fragrant. How then can we affirm that this was so ordered by nature? To affirm that being born among thorns follows the natural constitution of the rose is the same as affirming that human beings being born within domestic walls is the natural constitution of man. It is a wonder that, whereas in this flower, the most beautiful of all, many things can be considered which we might not absurdly say follow its nature, we disregard them and direct our attention to the thorns, which are the worst aspects. From the school of the Peripatetics and of noble philosophers, it is known and we hold it for certain that those things which follow a natural constitution are so proper to a thing that they cannot be said of others, nor communicated to others, while preserving the nature of both. But does it belong only to the rose to be born among thorns? Therefore, being born among thorns does not follow the natural constitution of the rose. But it is not so proper that it is unconnected with others; therefore, it is not given by nature; therefore, a rose can be generated and can be generated without thorns. But let us grant that the matter is indeed so, and that being born among thorns follows the natural constitution of the rose. What then? Is the power of cultivation, of soil, of water, and of the sky already so great in plants, if we are to believe Theophrastus and others, that wondrous alterations and mutations are seen in them daily? And Hippon is the author [of the view] that every plant, both wild and urban, can be made cultivated or not cultivated. And will sin not effect this? The penalty of sin? God himself? Add: "it shall bring forth thorns and thistles for you." If there were already thorns, if there were already thistles, the divine words are empty, the curse is empty and vain, even if you say they existed, but not as a penalty. These are the things, Pererius, which, even if the authority of the fathers Eustathius, Basil, and Augustine did not exist—whose authority!—induce me to believe that the rose was made without thorns before the sin.

Col. 716, lin. 28. Pliny, lib. xvi, Nat. Hist., cap. 25, "Of those things which conceive when the eagle rises in winter, as we have said, the almond blossoms first of all in the month of January, but in March it ripens"; and cap. 26, "They most easily lose before maturity the palm, fig, almond, apple, pear, and pomegranate, which also loses its blossom from excessive dew and frost. For this reason, they bend its branches so that they do not receive and hold the harmful moisture of the substances beneath. The pear and the almond, even if it does not rain, but the sky becomes southerly or cloudy, lose their blossom and first fruits if such days occur when they have finished blossoming." The same is reported in lib. xvii, cap. 2, which he had from Theophrastus, De causis plant. lib. ii, cap. 11: "The blossoming is most of all from the fruits before they ripen in the fig, the date, the almond, the apple, and the pear. For it is sufficient for anything to become soggy and weakened, and at the same time there occurs a magnitude of winds. The pomegranate is very prone to falling in its blossoms. For their attachment is weak; so when drizzle and dews fall, entering into the blossom it moistens it and causes it to drop. Therefore they pull down the trees and do not let them grow to height, so that the blossoms, not becoming upright, may receive the moisture. Others even command to plant the branches in reverse for this reason, so that they may immediately bow down. That moisture is the cause of the falling is clear from this also. For the pear and almond trees, even if it does not rain, but the air is southerly and cloudy, cast off even the blossoms and the first fruits if it happens immediately after the blossoming. It should be known that the Hebrew [text] says 'almond' instead of 'walnut.' And the almond signifies the speed of the punishment; for it blossoms before other trees. The almond is the first. ^B And the bitter almond. We have known some to heal even the nature of the evil by the care of farmers; for instance, the bitter wild pears, and the more bitter of the almonds, when they are bored through at the stem near the roots and receive a fatty wedge of pine driven into the pith. They then change the difficulty of the sap into usefulness. You will make the bitter one sweet if, having bored the trunk for a palm’s breadth in a square, you receive the tear annually until it becomes sweet. ^C Others, doing better, dig around and wrap it in swine dung, pouring on urine, then, covering it with earth, they water it annually until they become sweet. Every trunk of an almond tree that is cut loses its fruit. You will make it tender and sweet from hard and bitter if you uncover the stem up to the top of the many roots, and water it continuously with warm water before the ^D blossoming.

^A

Col. 716, line 34. *The same treatment.* Aristotle, *De plantis*, book 1, ch. 3: "Almond trees also, and pomegranates, lose their malice through cultivation, and pomegranates are rendered better if pig manure is injected into the roots and they are watered with fresh cold water." But almond trees, when fixed with nails and dripping gum for a long time, are rendered better, and many wild plants are made garden-plants by this artifice; and Paxamus in the *Collector of Geoponics*, book 10. [...]

Line 55. ^B *And the female palm.* Basil, homily 5: "And you might see at some time the one called by them 'female' bending her branches as if in heat, and desiring the embrace of the male; and the caretakers of the plants cast upon the branches, as it were, certain seeds of the males, called 'months.' And thus she seems to experience a sense of enjoyment and to lift her branches again, and to restore the foliage to the proper shape of the plant." I yoke together the male and the palm tree rejoicing in the female. ^C But the palm tree loves, and fiercely, another palm tree, and does not cease from the desire until the beloved one solaces her. For it is possible to see the tree bent over, not bearing its own fruit-bearing stem, nor bearing fruit. This does not escape the farmer, but he infers that it loves and is loved, though he does not know by whom; wherefore, moving to many palm trees, and again returning to the one that is loving, and touching it with his hand, he seems to provide a kiss. And what palm tree is the cause of her passion, she indicates in a way by the movement of her passions and her hands, as if one might say, by a nod. For she looks towards that one, and rushes towards it as if from the root, throwing herself upon it. Therefore, it becomes a grief to the loving one that the farmer, by continuously touching the male, brings his hands near to the beloved one; but he especially soothes the love if, during the budding, he takes from the sheath of the male and puts it into the head of the loving one, and then the palm tree, adorned, will bring forth the finest fruit. ^D [...] *if during the budding he takes from the sheath of the male*... The fruit of the male is the one, but the fruit of the female is the date; and that from which the dates hang is the *spathe* (sheath). Xenophon and Herodotus mentioned the name, saying that some also had bows from this tree. To explain the nature of this tree, many leading men have contributed the powers of their genius, so that one might seem more eloquent than another. Among others, Philostratus in *Icones*, book 1, in Achilles Tatius *On the Loves of Clitophon and Leucippe*, book 1, and Theophylact Simocatta, epistle 18, and in *Natural Questions*, question 5.

Ibid., line 39. Pliny, book 16, ch. 22: "The mulberry, however, buds last, when it is already dropping its first leaves"; and ch. 25: "They flower with a late budding, and ripen quickly, just like the mulberry, which buds latest among the cultivated trees, nor, unless...

^A it withstands the cold, does it receive the sun's ray in abundance through its porosity."

Ibid., lin. 57. *"This one does nothing in vain."* Basil, hom. 5: "Nothing is without a cause, nothing is by chance; everything possesses a certain hidden wisdom. For neither does nature do anything in vain, nor is its intelligence unwilling to assist nature." Augustine, lib. 1, *De Genes. contra Manichæos*, cap. 16, refutes the ignorance of those who think that things whose use they themselves are ignorant of have been created entirely uselessly and superfluously. Aristotle in many places contends that God and nature do nothing in vain, and especially in 1 *De Cœlo*, text 31, and lib. 2, text 50 and text 59; and in lib. 1 *Polit.*, cap. 5, and elsewhere; and Theophrastus *De causis plant.*, at the beginning: "Nothing happens without some more hidden cause," he writes; and lib. 27, cap. 24: "So greatly did that parent of all things bring nothing forth without immense causes"; and Palingenius in *Vitæ zodiaco*: "How nothing does nature do in vain, and God, who calculates these things not by chance, but by reason, will say that all things are done by the counsel and command of God." ^B

Col. 717, lin. 1. *"For one and the same water pulled through the root."* Basil, hom. 5: "For one water, drawn up through the root, feeds the root itself in one way, the bark of the trunk in another, the wood in another, and the pith in yet another way. The same also becomes a leaf, and is cleft into shoots and branches, and provides growth to the fruits, while the plant's tear and sap originate from the same cause." ^C To the same opinion Sextus Empiricus, *Pyrrhon. Hypoth.*, lib. 1: "Just as water, although it is of one kind, being distributed to the trees, becomes bark in one place, a branch in another, and in another fruit, and also a fig, and a pomegranate, and each of the others; this indeed happens exactly as the same food, when digested, sometimes becomes a vein, sometimes an artery, sometimes a bone, sometimes a sinew, and each one of the other things; and in musical instruments, one and the same breath of the musicians, blown into a flute, becomes now high, now low; and the hand pressed upon a lyre sometimes renders a deep sound, sometimes ^D a high one; and in other things we see the same thing happening."

Ibid., lin. 4. *"And from the same moisture."* Basil, hom. 5: "How, again, from the same moisture, wine is formed in the vine, and oil in the olive; and this is not the only wonder, how here the liquid has become sweet, but there it has become oily, but that even in sweet fruits there is an unspeakable difference of quality. For what is sweet in the vine is one thing, and that in the apple tree, the fig, and the palm is another." Concerning the differences of juices in plants, see Theophrastus *De Histor. plant.*, lib. 1, cap. 19, and his interpreter Pliny, lib. 15, cap. 28, who treat the variety of these most diffusely.

Ibid., lin. 9. *"And the very things of the trees."* Basil, hom. 5: "For the tear of the mastic tree is one thing, and the sap of the balsam is another, and certain reeds in Egypt, and in Libya there is another kind of juice producing..."

^A they flow. Some call them succulent juices, others tears. The succulent juice is more common. Perhaps there is no difference, since what is commonly called by no specific name is a moisture having its own proper digestion for each. But because some are more corporeal and viscous, and others watery and not viscous, some are capable of solidifying, and others are not. To some, they even add a substance to make them solidify, and to facilitate collection. "For the mastic tree is another thing." It is formed also on the mastic tree, and on the thistle called *ixine*, from which comes mastic. This *ixine* does not grow in many places; it is a root-leaf plant; and from the middle of the root a seed-bearing thistle grows out, just like an apple, very well hidden among the leaves. This bears its nectar-sweet tear on the tip, and this is the *akanthikē* (thorny) mastic.

^B There is also a certain report that has reached us, concerning the sap of the mastic trees that flows down even now, and solidifies—you all know how great its yield is, among the Chians alone, and how, if there is anything most beneficial to this life, both in itself and when mixed with others, it is that it is not in the habit of solidifying strongly beforehand, and from this, when it rains, it is carried along with the waters and lost. That the contests of the martyr were not without some very great significance, and his brilliant struggles against his enemies, and the unyielding nature of his resolve, and his frequent endurance, which is ^C what is seen now, transformed it until it was near the nature of stone, and at the same time caused such an increase in it that there is hardly anyone of those who have ever dwelt on earth who does not enjoy its annual yield. For it would not have been the case that the Asclepiadae of old—who forgot nothing of the afflictions requiring medical treatment—would have so often been almost oblivious to it, even though it contributes to the most critical needs, to clear away the excess humors, to alleviate and soothe pains, to strengthen the relaxed parts of the body, and to give them vigor, as it has a natural capacity to do. Thus, the fruit of the best and most wonderful husbandman, possessing an action in accordance with its name, is most sweet. Except that the one deems even weary souls worthy of healing and bestows health upon those who are in a bad state of body, while the other infuses into this a brief outflow of its medicinal power. ^D And another is the balsam. Now the balsam grows in the Caulon, which is near Syria, and they say there are only two gardens, one of about twenty *plethra*, and the other much smaller.

^A Egypt; Strabo, book XVI, reports that it grows wild in the maritime regions of the Sabaeans; Theophrastus admits that he has never heard of wild balsam being found anywhere; Pausanias, in his *Boeotica*, describes trees in Arabia of the size of myrtles, with leaves like marjoram. See the remainder of the history of the vipers lurking beneath its foliage. Pliny says that it is cut with glass, stone, or bone knives, and injured by iron; Theophrastus, that it is cut with iron nails; Pliny says that the first excellence comes from the tear, the second from the seed, the third from the bark, and the least from the wood; Theophrastus, that the first is from the fruit, the second from the tear, and the last from the branches. Brother Brocardus, in his description of the Holy Land, recounts without censure a different method of collecting this balsam, and confesses that he saw it: "There is also a garden of balsam there, which is irrigated by a small but very abundantly flowing spring, in which they say the blessed Virgin washed the boy Jesus; for this reason that spring is held in veneration, not only by Christians, but also by Saracens. The Saracens showed me the method of collecting this balsam. They would pluck one leaf from the stem—for the leaves adhere to the stem—and by plucking it against the sun's ray, they extracted a drop that was most brilliant and extraordinarily fragrant: and this is the true liquor of balsam, which is collected in glass vials and sent to different parts of the world, although it rarely arrives in our regions without mixture. They also say that if that leaf were not broken against the sun's ray, it would shed no juice at all."

Col. 717, line 13. *And some report also the amber.* Basil, homily 5: "And amber is also a certain sap of plants which hardens into the nature of stone." Psellus, concerning stones, posits a twofold amber, one Indian and the other Libyan, and says it is found near the river Eridanus; he adds, "Some also say it is the tear of a certain tree. For it is light and is burnt like frankincense and mastic." Pliny, book XXXVII, chapters 2 and 3, gathered the various opinions of authors concerning amber and its origin, which I have thought inept to recount here. If anyone desires to admire and honor the erudition of such a great man, let him approach a place that is indeed wonderful and filled with every kind of prudence and learning. What shall we, so puny and poor, add to him? Aristotle, in his book *On Marvellous Listenings*, avoids the fictitious inventions of the poets. Dalecampius relates another origin for amber, contrary to Pliny, thus: "In the region which sends amber, there are no resinous trees. But in the tract of the northern shores, there is indeed a type of yellow bitumen, just as there is black in our region in the Auvergne, and its yellow naphtha, such as they bring from the Saxons and call petroleum, as we call *aira*. Since, therefore, that bitumen flows from its source while still soft and liquid, it embraces, retains, and encloses everything it meets. Yet, when the tide laps at it and tosses it into the deep, it hardens more through the swirling and the salt and the length of time, just as *pissasphaltum* does with us, and by then it is amber; and thus concreted, it is cast up on the shore opposite its source by adverse winds. Gagates, which is undoubtedly bitumen in the bowels of the earth ^B hardened by many ages, I have had in its stone mines, half-black and half-yellow, after the manner of amber, which is the most certain proof that amber is formed in the way we have said."

Ibid., line 19. *This is that first light.* What that first light in those ancient times was, as well as in our own, is still a matter of controversy: many have disputed about it fully and clearly. Damascenus, book II, *De Fide Orthodoxa*, c. 7, thinks that that light was the element of fire. Ambrosius Catharinus says that that light was the perfect light of the sun, just as it is now; of whose perfection and beauty a great argument is that God Himself approved it by His own judgment. Bede in *Hexaemeron*, Nicolaus de Lyra, Tostatus, and others think that that first light was not the sun, but a certain luminous body after the likeness of a dense and shining cloud in the higher part of the world, that is to say, in the place where the sun was later placed, which, turned into a circle around the denser part of the matter that encompassed the middle place of the world, effected the successions of days and nights, and from that luminous body later, on the fourth day, the sun was formed with the addition of more ample and excellent light. Dionysius the Areopagite, part I, cap. 4, *On the Divine Names*, followed by St. Thomas in the first part, quaest. 67, art. 4, and quaest. 70, art. 1; Dionysius the Carthusian on the first chapter of Genesis, art. 9; Pererius and others think that it was none other than the light of the sun, but that it was made on the first day as if formless and imperfect, but on the fourth day was made absolute and consummate. ^C "For this is itself the light, even if it was then unformed, which the divine Moses spoke of, and that very one marked the first of the triads of days that we know. And just as," etc. Our author, and Basil with him in homily 6, whose words I shall transcribe here, so that I may not be forced to repeat the same thing too often, says that this first light was created by itself and was immaterial, but on the fourth day the body of the sun was made as its vehicle, in which it is implanted and impressed. "For then that nature of light was produced, but now this solar body has been prepared to be a vehicle for that primordial light. For just as fire is one thing and a lamp is another—the former having the power to illuminate, the latter made to shed light for those in need—so too have the luminaries now been prepared as a vehicle for that most pure and sincere and immaterial light." The same view seems to be held by Gregory Nazianzen and others, whom we cited above. Palingenius, ^D in his *Zodiac of Life*, book X, defends this latter opinion in his doctrine, although some think it strange and as introducing a new miracle which, as it seems to many, is least to be admitted in the history of creation, for he says that God, by His omnipotence and science, created many things and greater things outside the heaven, nay more, since He was able —"To make infinite things, it must be thought He made infinite things and fulfilled all vigor,

nor to have preserved in itself anything vain or useless. ^A Stobæus in *Physical Eclogues*, Julian the Apostate in his *Hymn to the Sun*, and Proclus.

This, however, to be infinite— Pure, immense, and without body, light, Light, than which our sun’s light is far less, Light, which earthly eyes could not discern, Light, which God pours forth from Himself, infinite.

And that this light is without body seems in no way inconvenient, since light does not proceed from matter, but from form, —From which all power and beauty flows.

Which, since they are granted to corporeal forms, must be granted much more to incorporeal forms. Especially since they are purer and more tenuous, and Partakers much more abundantly of the beautiful and the good. Indeed, among the gods, the more powerful each one is, And the more worthy, the more brilliantly he shines with greater light. As among the stars the sun is by far the brightest, So among the gods shines that king of the gods, Yet he does not obscure the others, but rather perfects them. Nor is air required in which that light might inhere as in a subject, since air is in no way a subject of light, nor is light in the air: indeed, the air, on the contrary, is in the light, and light can exist without the vision of air. But the light which is in the sun is a particle of divine light, and therefore it shines in the sun, although it is not comprehended in God because of the matter of the sun, which is most apt for light. That divine light is also impressed upon the forms of other gods, although not equally on all. And not all stars shine with equal light, But one more than another, as much as this one is more perfect than that. And as one candle can kindle many others, Yet does not itself lose or diminish its own brightness; Just so, that light of God, inviolate and in no way Decreasing, imparts light to the other gods. ^B Palingenius would therefore reply to the opponents of this opinion: that such light was so created without any matter that it could subsist by itself without air, in itself as if in its own form, which was separated from all body and matter, and thus no new miracle is introduced; that light was later communicated to the sun on the fourth day, not through a substantial change, but through a different application, just as divine light is communicated to the blessed, by which communication they become luminous, just as many candles are lit from a single first candle. But let the judgment of others be on this opinion of Palingenius; there are some things which I consider ought to be read with caution and explained prudently. But to me, always in these matters, in which the power and faculty of nature lies overcome by the difficulty of things, and the keenness of the human mind and its eyes grow dim, and they cannot be confirmed except by divine breath, the opinion of the holy Fathers seems more probable, and I do not capture my intellect with curiosity, even if I have not found those who feel the same as I do. ^C

Col. 717, lin. 23. *And as a different thing*. Basil, Homily 6: "As, therefore, whiteness is one thing in nature, and the body that has been whitened is another thing; so also the things now said, being different, are united by the power of the Creator."

Ibid., lin. 28. *Then the sun from the fire*. Concerning the nature, magnitude, figure, revolutions, defect, signs, and motion of the sun, see what Stobæus reports.

Ibid., lin. 47. *This same example*. Basil pursues this same thing more fully in Homily 6. That the moon is covered by the sun’s brightness, and shines entirely with light borrowed from it, Pliny reports in book II, chapter 9, whose words, since they are relevant to the matter, I shall write down here. That it is covered by the sun’s brightness, as are the other stars: if indeed it shines entirely with light borrowed from him, such as we see fluttering in the reflection of water. Therefore, to loosen so much moisture—and even to increase it—which the sun's rays take up, and therefore it is seen with unequal light: since it is only when it is opposite that it is full, and on other days it shows to the earth only as much from itself as it receives from the sun. In conjunction it is not seen at all: because it turns away all the draught of light ^D from the place whence it had received it. Apuleius, in his book *On the God of Socrates*: The moon is a rival to the sun, a goddess of the night, whether it is horned, or divided, or protuberant, or full, with a varied torch of fires; the further it is from the sun, the more the part illuminated increases, calculating the month by the increment of its journey and light, and by its equal expenditures. And for this reason, the Greek poets call it the daughter of the sun, Euripides in the *Phœnissæ*: O daughter of the golden-zoned Sun, Selanaia, golden-circled light.

Hesiod, however, and Virgil call it a sister: Nor does the moon rise subject to the rays of her brother.

Thales said that it is illuminated by the sun, which Pythagoras, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Metrodorus also thought. Avicenna and Macrobius believe the moon borrows light from the sun: while the other stars shine from their own. Antipho held that it shines with its own light, but that its parts hidden by the approach of the sun are obscured, as the weaker by the stronger, just as happens with other stars. Anaximander and Xenophanes said the moon has its own light; Aristotle, that it has its own indeed, but thinner; the Stoics, that it is sub-obscure and airy; Berosus (on the authority of Cleomedes, and also Vitruvius, book IX, cap. 4, whom see) thought the body of the moon was a ball, on one side burning and on the other blue, and that its change occurs according to how much more or less it is seized by the sun. Jacobus Milichius, in his commentary on the passage of Pliny set forth by us above, explains the causes of the diversity of appearances in the moon most excellently. But their opinion, who hold both that the moon has its own light and that it also borrows from the sun (which our Eustathius also follows), is truer and more probable; for it has its own proper light, which is in a way obscure and not luminous, like charcoal, but it receives the solar splendor, which is clear, by which it shows itself, and opens the way for others to see, just as the sun does during the day. More on these things from Cleomedes, book II *Meteororum*, among other things: "The ancients of the physical philosophers and astronomers also knew that the moon has its light from the sun, as is evident first from the etymology of its name, being named so from *selas* (brightness) because it always has new light, and from the fact that it is granted, or *exdas*..." [index: entries preserved]

^A to those entering the Artemisia. For this is a symbol of the moon receiving its light from without.

Ibid., last line. *Of that day not being*. I read *not burning*, nor etc., according to the mind of the author, who considered these two things in the sun, light and heat, giving light to the day and heat to the sun: and therefore he says here that the sun received light from that day, neither burning nor heating, but only illuminating.

Col. 720, line 2. *That it is composed of fire*. Almost all the ancient philosophers with one voice affirmed the sun to be something hot and incandescent, although they did not agree in expressing this heat. Euripides in the *Phaethon* called it fire: *O sun, wheeling the flame with swift horses*, and in the *Phaethon*: *And a hot flame of the sovereign, Rising up from the earth.*

Anaxagoras and Democritus [vouched for it being] glowing iron or stone; Parmenides wished the sun and moon to be separated from the Milky Way, the former from a rarer mixture of hot, the latter from a denser mixture of cold; Xenophanes thinks the sun arises from burning clouds, and that a defect occurs when these are extinguished, and another rises in their place; Theophrastus [thinks it is] composed of physical sparks from a moist exhalation; see the opinions of Anaximander and others in Stobaeus in his *Physical Eclogues*, page 55; and the ancient Fathers, Basil, hom. 6; Augustine in many places; Ambrose lib. 11, *Hexaem.*, and others. And among the more recent, Hugo of St. Victor, *Annot. in Genes.*, cap. 6, says that the sun alone has its own proper light, and was itself made of fire, while the other stars shine rather by reflecting from an airy material than by emitting light. ^B Yet many doctors conclude by very valid arguments that the sun, like the other stars, is neither of a hot nor of a fiery nature. For the sun is incorruptible, nor does it admit corruptible qualities, such as heat and cold are. The stars and the sun are neither moved against nature nor violently: but if they were fiery, that would happen, for fire is moved upward. Likewise, nothing would be secure and safe, for all things would have been consumed by that fire of the stars, since they would not only heat and scorch by light, but also by heat. Let us say, therefore, that solar heat is nothing other than the heat of fire, modified by the sun's brilliance, by which it is naturally drawn. For since among alimentary bodies the fiery one alone imitates the celestial brilliance, and it is such that most of the ancient philosophers suspected, because of that similarity, that the stars are fiery, it becomes very consistent that by reason of that similarity fire is easily drawn by celestial light, which is also a certain trace of the divinity of that body. If you desire more, attend to Franciscus Valesius, *De sacra philosophia*, cap. 1. Finally, the opinion of the Peripatetics is that the sun produces both heat and cold by its light, but in a different way, the former by itself, the latter accidentally; for the presence of light causes heat, but the absence causes cold: for where the sun's light reaches either not at all or weakly, there cold ^C is seen to be gathered and strengthened. Ludovicus Fidelis, *De mundi struct.*, lib. v, cap. 5, proposes the question regarding the heat of the sun, and resolves it according to the mind of our author thus: But here, he says, some anxiety arises: does heat cling perpetually to the sun, or is it entirely devoid of heat? Various opinions are circulated about this; yet I would judge nothing alien to the truth if, just as brilliance is always clinging to the sun, internal heat is also attributed to it: which, diffused round about, heats these lower things. Hence, by how much closer the sun approaches us and appears nearer to our zenith, by so much is its heat perceived as more intense, and the further it is from us, the weaker. And hence those who lie under the torrid zone are scorched by a more vehement heat, because for them the sun's heat is perpendicular, and those who are further away [are scorched] by a greater ^D freezing cold. Hence it comes about that those who reside under the Arctic or Antarctic pole are subject to immense cold, just as those under the torrid zone are subject to continuous scorching heats. It also happens that when the sun occupies our horizon, the air is discovered to be hotter, and when it recedes, colder.

Ibid., line 4. *To divide between*. Basil, hom. 6: *And now he appointed the sun to the measures of the day, and the moon, whenever it might be completed toward its own cycle, he made the leader of the night.* Constant. Man. in *Annal.*: *Thus then the things concerning the stars were completed, And the sun was set as the star ruling the day; But the eye of the moon lit up the night.*

Ibid., line 7. *But night is a shadow*. Basil, hom. 6: *And night retreats in the opposite direction to the rays, being nothing else by nature than a shadow of the earth. For just as in the day the shadow is set alongside the object blocking the light, so night is naturally constituted by the air around the earth being shadowed.* Pliny, lib. 11, cap. 10: *Upon the earth approaching, sudden darkness is drawn over, and again by its shadow the star is dimmed.* Nor is night anything other than the shadow of the earth. Palingenius in *Zodiaco vitæ*, lib. 1: *But night is created in the opposing part, For it is nothing else than the shadow of the earth and the sea.*

Ibid., line 11. *And the sun, as if*. Concerning the preeminence, dignity, admirable force, and power of the sun: Dionysius the Areopagite, *De divin. nominibus*, cap. 4; Julian the Apostate, Orpheus, Proclus, Lycius, *hymn. in solem*; Pliny, lib. 11, cap. 6, most elegantly: *In the middle of these the sun is carried, with the most ample magnitude and power; nor is he only the ruler of the seasons and the lands, but of the stars themselves and of the heaven. It is fitting to believe that he is the soul of the whole world, and more plainly its mind; that he is the principal regimen and deity of nature, judging by his works. He provides light to things and takes away darkness; he hides the remaining stars; he tempers the changes of the seasons and the year, always being reborn according to the use of nature; he dispels the sadness of the sky, and even calms the clouds of the human mind; he lends his light to the other stars also. Illustrious, excellent, seeing all things, hearing all things as well, as I see that it pleased Homer, the prince of literature, in that one star.* On the encomiums of the sun, read Plutarch, lib. *De doctrina principum*; Macrobius, 1 *Saturnalium*; Ambrosius.

lib. IV *Hexaem.*, cap. 1; Gregory Nazianzen, *De nova Dominica*, and orat. 11, *De theologia*; John Jovianus Pontanus, *Urania* lib. 1; Augustine Eugubinus, *Cosmop.* cap. 1.

Col. 720, lin. 13. *And the moon [is] not so.* Regarding the various mutations of the moon, I have said I know not what. Some attribute the increase of the moon to an accretion of flame, which would increase gradually in order until it becomes full, and in the same way decrease again until it is completely extinguished at conjunction; a theory which Xenophanes likewise asserted concerning the monthly occultation.

Ibid., lin. 16. *Now the sun [is] time.* Regarding time, its nature, and other things pertaining to time, philosophers have said much in their physics.

Ibid., lin. 22. *And let them be for signs.* Some presume to add weight and authority to these words of what they call judicial astrology, and boast that this science, if it be from God, is corroborated by this testimony from the very beginning of the world, and was intended for mortals to seek after, even with sweat and vigils. For they say that in the position and aspect of the stars themselves, as if on a certain tablet, everything that is ever to happen in this lower world can be seen, with all doubt and uncertainty removed. But the validity and strength this opinion has, and the foundations and arguments upon which it rests, others before us have treated with sufficient accuracy; nor does the nature of our writing require that we should repeat the same things, for the outcome of events demonstrates this vanity daily, even to those who are unwilling to see it. Basil inveighs sharply against these astrologers in this passage. Chrysostom, and Gregory the Great on Chapter [of] Matthew; Augustine, lib. 11, *super Genes. ad litteram*, c. 17, and lib. 11, *De doctrina Christiana*, cap. 21, and elsewhere; Eusebius, *De praeparatione Evangel.* lib. xv, cap. 4; and lib. vi, cap. 9. Indeed, a huge quantity of volumes were written against them by Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, as reported by Photius in the *Bibliotheca*, and by Bardesanes Syrus in that dialogue which he wrote at the request of friends concerning fate and against the Chaldeans, as Eusebius recalls in lib. vi, *De praepar. Evang.*, cap. 8, and among more recent writers, John Pico in his twelve books, and others. Most people, with our Eustathius, think that these words pertain to signs of natural effects: of serenity, rain, winds, sterility, health, diseases, sowing, reaping, navigating, and doctoring, of which Pliny, the collector of the *Georgics*, Aratus, and others ^A treat at length in lib. 18, cap. 35; and we shall attempt to extract some things from them.

Ibid., lin. 23. *For the mist [is] in the air.* Basil, hom. 6, regarding the saying: "When the rays of the rising or setting [sun] are red, they portend rains." When the rays do not shine clearly from the east, even though they are not surrounded by a cloud, they portend rain. If clouds cluster before the rising, they announce a harsh winter; if clouds surround the sun, the less light remains, the more turbulent the storm will be; if, indeed, there is also a double circle, it will be the more atrocious. But if it happens at the rising that the clouds grow red, a maximum storm will be shown. Pliny in the collector of the *Georgics* lib. 1, reports many things similar to these.

Ibid., lin. 28. *When the so-called halos.* ^B Basil, hom. 6. When the so-called halos are described around the sun, they reveal either a great amount of watery air or the movement of violent winds; or they denote what they call "anthelia," which, when they revolve with the course of the sun, become signs of certain aerial symptoms. Therefore, just as the rods, which appear straight in the clouds according to the color of the rainbow, indicate droughts, or extraordinary winters, or in general a great change in the air. Aratus:

"And the halos near the sun, if they do not darken, are signs of fair weather; but if they darken over a greater area and without being firm, ^C they are more indicative of stormy weather. Two might be more severe. If, however, halos circle about it on all sides, or two or three surrounding it, or one, expect either wind from that side if it is broken, or fair weather if it fades. And two halos circling the moon might signify a winter. A triple halo brings a greater winter, and if they darken more, and if they break up more."

Ptolemy likewise, in lib. 11, the last chapter, did not neglect the observation of these areas: for if one is pure and fades away gradually, it signifies serenity; if two or three, they signify winter. And these accidents, along with the turbulence of the winds, reddish and as if broken, along with snow, and indeed murky and thick [clouds], portend greater and more severe [weather]. Aratus describes these prognostics thus: Pliny, lib. 2, cap. 29, called these areas "coronas," when clearly a circle is seen around the sun and moon, or another bright star. ^D The same coronae exist around the moon, and also adhere to noble stars in the sky. Aristotle, in lib. 3, *Meteor.*, handles these most absolutely of all.

Ibid., lin. 31. *And when the so-called.* Aratus:

"Observe whether, as it rises or immediately as it sets, the parhelia, as they are called, appear. Or if it is reddened from the south, or from the north, or from both; do not fail to watch this lookout. For when those clouds are on both sides at once around the sun near the Ocean..."

^A Let this be granted to our eyes, so that it may be manifest that those two luminaries shine more than the others above the earth, and that the day does not grow bright except by the light of the sun, nor the night shine with so many glittering stars if the moon is absent, in the same way as it is illuminated by her presence.

Ibid., line 44. Concerning the various observation of the stars in the cultivation of fields, many things [are observed by] the ancients: Pliny, Theophrastus, Varro, the author of the *Geoponica*, and others.

Ibid., line 46. Let the Pleiades arise [Hesiod, *Works and Days*, 1. 11]: "When the Atlas-born Pleiades arise, Begin the harvest; but plow when they set. For forty nights and days They are hidden; and again as the year revolves They appear, when first the iron is sharpened."

And Columella, *De re rustica*, book 11, chapter 8: "It pleases our poet to sow spelt, and also wheat, not before the Pleiades have set," which he explains in verse thus: "But if you are to work the soil for a wheat harvest and sturdy spelt, And press the sun-dried ears, Let the Eoan Atlantides first set for you."

They are hidden on the thirty-first day after the autumnal equinox, which is completed nearly on the ninth day before the Kalends of October: on account of which, the sowing of wheat should be understood as lasting for forty-six days from the setting of the Pleiades, which occurs before the ninth day before the Kalends of November, up to the time of the solstice; for thus prudent farmers provide, that fifteen days before the winter solstice is completed, and the same number after it is completed, they neither plow nor prune a vine or a tree.

Ibid., line 54. And this can be demonstrated by the weightiest argument from the doctrine of Aristotle, presupposing that time is the number of motion. Regarding how eternity differs from time, Proclus Diadochus has written more in his *Platonic Theology*.

Ibid., line 57. Basilius, homily 6: We think it appropriate to speak of the changes of the seasons—winter, spring, summer, and autumn—which, as the appointed motion of the luminaries provides, we see moving in orderly fashion. ^B And winter happens: for winter happens when the sun spends its time in the southern regions, producing a long nocturnal shadow in our part of the world, so that the air around the earth grows cold, and all the moist vapors, gathering around us, provide the cause of rains, frosts, and unutterable snowfall. The winter solstice occurs when the sun is at the greatest distance from our place of habitation and is at its lowest towards the horizon; it draws the southernmost circle and makes the longest night of all in the year and the shortest day. ^C When, however, turning back... ^D

again from the southernmost regions it arrives at the middle, so as to divide the time equally between night and day, for as long as it lingers in the regions above the earth, by so much does it gradually bring back moderate weather; and spring comes to all plants as the leader of vegetation, providing revival to most trees, and for land and water animals alike, it preserves the species through the succession of those that come after. The Vernal Equinox therefore occurs near the flower’s prime in the first degree of Aries. See more on this in Cicero, *De Natura Deorum*.

Col. 721, line 11. Spring comes to plants is as follows. ^A Longus Sophista, *Poimenicon*, book 1: "It was the beginning of spring, and everything was blooming with flowers, those in the forests, those in the meadows, and whatever was grassy. There was already a humming of bees, a sound of musical birds, and the leaping of newborn flocks; lambs were leaping in the mountains, bees were humming in the meadows, and birds were singing in the thickets."

Ibid., line 13. Then already. ^B Basilius, hom. 6: "Then already, driving the sun towards the summer solstices and towards the Bear itself, it provides us with the longest of days; and because it stays for a very long time in the air, it both cools the air above our heads and dries up the entire earth, assisting the grains toward maturity through this, and urging the fruits of the trees toward ripening, when the sun is also at its most flaming, making shadows short at midday, because it shines down on the region around us from on high." Summer solstice occurs near the increase of the heat in the first degree of Cancer, where the sun draws the northernmost circle and accomplishes the longest day of all in the year, and the shortest night. "Now therefore, it is the end, and the beginning of summer, and everything is at its prime, trees are in fruit, fields in crops; sweet is the humming of the cicadas, sweet also the smell of the fruit, and pleasant the bleating of the flocks. One might liken the rivers to singing as they flow quietly, and the winds to whistling as they breathe upon the pines, and the sun, being a lover of beauty, to stripping everyone of the day to make it night."

Ibid., line 19. For in the very short. ^D Basilius, hom. 6: "For they are the greatest of days in which the shadows are the shortest, and again these are the shortest days which have the longest shadows; and this is so among us who are called heteroscii, as many as inhabit the northern parts of the earth." You have an accurate explanation of these matters in Cleomedes, *Meteororum*, book 1.

Ibid., line 20. And again from the northern regions. Basilius, hom. 6: "From there, the season of autumn, having taken us in charge, breaks off the excess of the heat, and by gradually relaxing the warmth through the moderation in the blending, it safely leads us through itself to winter, obviously as the sun turns back again from the northern to the southern regions." And the Autumnal Equinox is when the sun, passing from the north to the south, again arrives at the equinoctial circle, and makes the day equal to the night. *On the mode of increase and decrease of days and nights, and the change of the seasons, the succession of heat and cold, with the sun passing through the spaces of the zodiac which are between the equinoctial and tropical points, and their cause, see most diligently the already mentioned Cleomedes, book 1, of the Meteororum; and Pliny, book xviii, cap. 25.*

Ibid., line 23. It does not make the day. Basilius, hom. 6: "Let them be also for days, not so as to make days, but so as to rule over the days. For day and night are older than the creation of the luminaries. For this is indicated to us also by the Psalm saying: 'He set the sun to rule the day, the moon and stars to rule the night.' How then does the sun have the rule of the day? Because, carrying light within itself, whenever it rises above our horizon, it provides a day by dissolving the darkness."

Ibid., line 34. And the moon when. Basilius, hom. 6: "The moon, when it has completed its own course twelve times, is productive of a year; except that it often needs an intercalary month for the precise concurrence of the hours; as the Hebrews of old kept the year, and the most ancient of the Greeks."

Ibid., line 35. But that an intercalary month. *Pliny book ii, chapter 8: "Then that the sun's path is of three hundred and sixty parts: but so that the observation of its shadows may return to the marks, five days are added every five years, and over this a quarter of a day, for which reason a single intercalary day is added in the fifth year, so that the ratio of the seasons may conform to the sun's journey. Concerning the intercalary year and month see Solinus, chapter 3, Petrus Nannius, Symmicton book 5, and others who have written on the emendation of the seasons."*

Ibid., line 57. For the solar year. Basilius, hom. 6: "And a solar year is the restoration from the same point to the same point according to the sun's own motion." ^C *Ludovicus Fidelis, De mundi structura, book v, cap. 5: "These are the years, as they say, some lunar, others solar. Lunar years [are completed] by thirteen revolutions of the moon: solar years are completed by one complete revolution of the sun from the point of Aries to the same point, embracing twelve months, or three hundred and sixty-five days, with one quadrant added." A leap year, however, is called one which is completed in four years' time with [additional] days. See more on this year from Censorinus, Josephus Scaliger, and others.* For since the year is measured by the motion of the sun, and the motion of the sun, performed in a circle and restored from the same point to the same, defines the year. And the sun travels through the zodiacal circle in a year: for it is an annual time, in which the sun travels around the zodiacal circle, and is restored from the same point to the same point. And this time is 365 days: for in such a number of days the sun travels through the twelve signs; so [that...] *Isaac Argyrus in the Paschal Canon, chap. 1; Geminus in the booklet De Apparentiis Coelestibus.*

^A *Regarding the waning of the moon.* I think that as regards the construction of animals, and things that grow from the earth, the final outcome of the change according to the moon is not small. For bodies are disposed one way as it wanes, and another way as it waxes—now, as it wanes, becoming sparse and empty, and now, as it waxes and rushes toward fullness, they are in turn filled up. For according to the waxings and wanings of the moon, many of the terrestrial and marine animals wane and wax, and ebbs and flows occur in certain parts of the sea.

*From the Halieutics:* "The tribes of shell-fish, and all that creep in the sea, `589` The story goes, as the moon waxes in her cycle, They fill out in flesh, and dwell in a larger home; But as she wanes, they shrink again into feebler limbs; Such is the necessity that is upon them."

Regarding sympathy: The moon, being closest to the earth, gives forth an outflow to those things near the earth, with most things—both animate and inanimate—sympathizing with her and moving along with her. Rivers also increase and decrease their currents with her lights, and the seas turn along with her. For I see that marine animals wax and wane with the moon, as do even parts of our own bodies, such as nails and hair. There was also a sacred animal in Egypt, a bull dedicated to the goddess, whose strength increased and decreased along with her. And there are even now certain stones that wane and wax along with the goddess.

*Regarding the Selenite stone:* "It has a white stone, which, as the lovely goddess Wanes, diminishes; but it waxes when the moon, Newly appeared, shedding the liquid light of her horn, Is milked of the self-born fire of the sun, the begetter."

*Psellus on stones:* The Selenite. It is so called because it shows an eye of a sort, ^B waxing and waning along with the waxings and wanings of the moon. See Philip Maussac in his notes on Plutarch’s *De Fluviis* at Hydaspes, and Caesar Evolvus the Neapolitan in his *De causis antipathiæ et sympathiæ rerum naturalium* at the end. And Rodulphus Goclenius in *Morosophia Joannis Roberti*, p. 171 and following, gathers more from the cited authors concerning the power and efficacy of the moon in these inferior things. It is also a wonder what is read in the papers of a certain herbalist: that the *lunaria* herb grows in the high Alps near springs or rivers, with little, round leaves like a small coin, almost similar to marjoram, of a bluish or sky-blue color, with a red, fragrant stalk and a saffron root; and that it is therefore called *lunaria*, because it is accustomed to wax and wane according to the increase or decrease of the moon, and is said to have as many leaves as the moon has days.

*Ibid., line 42. Because of moisture.* Basilius, hom. 6. ^C Because it introduces, unbeknownst to us, a certain moisture mixed with heat that reaches to the depth. Aristotle, lib. V, *De partibus animalium*, cap. 5, reports the reason for growth is that the nights are warmer, just as the reason for decrease is that they are colder; for since those bloodless animals, such as oysters, shellfish, and others of that kind, are of a colder nature, they are vexed by the cold and crave heat, by the aid of which they become fuller; for because of the fuller light, the nights are warmer, and not because they feed more copiously during that time, as many have said. Furthermore, Aristotle himself, lib. IV, *De generatione animalium*, cap. 2, teaches that just as the sun creates summer and winter throughout the whole year, so the moon does so per month. ^D

^A

Col. 721, lin. 43. *For those who sleep.* Basil, *Homily* 6, shows that those sleeping under the moon are filled in the open spaces of the head by an excess of moisture; that what is freshly slaughtered and meat quickly turns upon the moon's onset; as [do] the brains of animals, the most humid parts of sea creatures, and plant life. ^B For all things that are naturally inclined to act become dim when the moon becomes crescent-shaped; but all things become strong when it is full, so that it ripens fruit quickly, causes dead bodies to putrefy, and renders those who have slept under its light, or otherwise remained exposed to it for a long time, pale and heavy-headed.

Ibid., lin. 46. *Likewise also those things...* The conditions of the air also change with the changes of the moon, as attested to us by the sudden disturbances of clouds clashing and colliding with one another, often occurring at the new moon after calm and stillness.

Sea of the Euboean gulf, revolving in return, Wandering water, set against its own currents, To the sun, and by night, arranged in a triple mystery; How much current you lend to ships, I marvel at the miracle of your life, O countless one, nor do I seek Your resting place. These things are the care of an ineffable nature.

Ibid., lin. 50. *And there occur around the Euripi...* Basil, *Homily* 6: And the back-flowings around the Euripi, and the ebb-tide around the so-called Ocean, are found by those dwelling there to follow in an ordered manner according to the periods of the moon. For the Euripi flow back and forth during the rest of the moon's cycle, but at the time of its newness they are not still even for the shortest moment, but remain in continuous surf and oscillation, until, the moon reappearing, it provides a certain sequence to the ebb and flow. The western sea undergoes ebb-tides, now receding and then flooding again, just as if it were being drawn toward the rear by the inhalations of the moon, and again pushed forward to its own standard by its exhalations.

*Euripus, a euripus,* or a strait, or a conduit of waters dividing the land adjacent on both sides. Cicero, lib. V, *De legibus*: The conduits of water which those people call Niles and Euripi, who that has seen them would not laugh? Pollux, lib. IX, cap. 1: But the name was more properly imposed to explain those things that move and return, by flowing or receding. Longus, *Poem*: There is a city of Lesbos, Mytilene, great and beautiful; it is divided by Euripi, the sea flowing through, and is adorned with bridges of polished white stone.

And regarding the Ocean... ^C And Pyrrha was situated on the western side of Lesbos, at a distance of a hundred stadia, as Strabo relates in book XIII; and the sea between Euboea and Chalcis, which was connected by a bridge of two *jugera*. That this was common to others is sufficiently manifest in history, and although Eustathius appears to affirm the reflux of the sea only in the Euripi, yet if his words are rightly weighed, they are understood of the entire mass of the whole sea, or (if I may say so) of the abyss. He brought up the mention of the Euripi because this flux is perceived especially in them. And around the shores, as Pliny says, the movements of the sea are perceived more than on the high seas. The more manifest this is to the eyes of spectators, the more it distresses and puzzles the minds of those who ponder it, and disrupts and confuses the truth patent to the senses. Some have thought that the sea, in its reciprocating flux, ebbs and flows seven times by night and by day. Seneca in *Hercules Oetaeus*:

The Euripus twists the unstable and wandering waves, And carries seven courses and brings back as many, While the Titan plunges his fallen light into the Ocean.

Livy, lib. XXVII, does not agree with this opinion: The strait itself of the Euripus, he says, does not reciprocate seven times a day, as rumor has it, at stated times, but randomly in the manner of the wind, now hither, now thither, the sea being turned, as if a torrent rushed down a precipitous mountain. Antiphilus of Byzantium expressed its reciprocation most elegantly in *Anthologia Epigrammatum*, lib. I, cap. 56.

It was also asked for a long time by philosophers, by what reason and by what force the sea approaches and again recedes; Plutarch refers to their views. Euripides in *Iphigenia in Tauris* believes it is snatched away by certain winds blowing there. What if the same thing is found to happen even when no breeze is blowing? Nazianzenus relates that Aristotle, because he could not discover the nature of this thing, gave up his soul in weariness; Justin Martyr [says] that he threw himself headlong into its depths, and so cast off his discouraged soul. The more common opinion, however, and the one more consonant with truth, seems to be that which some ancient philosophers and most excellent men have followed, but also many Fathers of the Catholic Church, and which our Eustathius embraces: namely, that the moon is the cause of this motion; how this happens is explained by philosophers in the *Meteorologica*, and we shall say some things about it below. Such was the opinion of Ptolemy, Cicero, Pliny, Strabo, Marsilius Ficinus, Levinus Lemnius, and others. The same pleased Ambrose in lib. IV *Hexaem.*, cap. 7, and Basil, *Homily* 6. ^D

Ibid., lin. 51. Regarding the tide of the sea, and its consideration, and its cause, and the opinions of others regarding this, you have more in Franciscus Vallesius, *De sacra philosophia*, cap. 52, and against Eratosthenes, who wished this to be the sole cause of this inequality, and other... of the same sea.

^A

The fact that the waters cannot follow the moon as it flies, a flux is indeed created in the Ocean under the torrid zone towards the west, until it strikes against the opposite shores and is curved by them; then, upon the departure of the moon, the gathering of the waters, which is on its journey towards the torrid zone—which, abandoned by the tract that had drawn them out, has caught momentum—is dissolved, returns, and assaults its own shores; and this impulse is another, generated by the absence of the moon, until the moon, returning, receives the reins of this impulse, moderates it, and revolves it along with its own motion. Thus, shores that are equally exposed are all filled at the same hours, but those more recessed are filled more slowly, and some in a diverse manner due to the various openings of the ocean.

*Ibid.*, line 53. *Kátōthen gár hē selēnē*. In solar eclipses, by what reason the sun’s rays do not penetrate the moon, and how the moon, although it is far smaller, nevertheless obscures the whole sun, Cleomedes explains clearly in *Meteor.*, book II, page 80 of the Paris edition.

*Ibid.*, line 55. *Méga dè kaì autē hē selēnē*. Regarding the magnitude of the moon and other planets, Cleomedes in the aforementioned place and others [write] more. Anaxagoras, according to Plutarch, said the moon was equal to the Peloponnese. Ludovico Fidelis, in *De mun. str.*, book V, cap. 7, contends that it is arrogant to inquire and search into the magnitude and quantity of the sun and moon, and that we ought to be content with the description of this function of the sun, moon, and stars, so that the sun may preside over the day, and the moon over the night, and that they may divide between light and darkness, day and night. For it is vain, he says, to waste glorious time and exert much sweat in searching for things which God willed to be unknown.

*Ibid.* *Mῦθοι δὲ ληρώδεις ὑπὸ μεθυόντων*. Basil, hom. 6: ^B “Certain ridiculous myths, raved about by old women drinking themselves silly, have been spread everywhere, that the moon, moved from its own seat by certain incantations, is brought down to the earth. How, then, could it be moved by the spells of sorcerers, when the Most High himself established it? And what place would have received it if it had been pulled down?” That witches and magi could bring down the sky, hold up the earth—to use the words of Apuleius—harden fountains, dissolve mountains, raise up the spirits of the dead, weaken gods, extinguish stars, illuminate Tartarus itself, bind the sluggish sea, restrain the sun, lead down the moon, uproot stars, and many other things grave to speak of and of greatest wonder, many have believed—with their great whisperings, whenever and wherever they pleased—and most of all the poets. Dido says to her sister Anna, in book IV of Virgil's *Aeneid*:

Hence to me has been shown the priestess of the Massylian race: She promises by her charms to set free the minds she wishes, But to cast hard cares upon others, To make the river waters stand and turn their currents back, And she stirs the nocturnal spirits: you will see the earth groan ^C Under her feet, and the ash trees descend from the mountains.

Propertius, *Eleg.*, book I, eleg. 1:

But you, who have the trick of pulling down the moon, And the labor of making holy offerings on magic hearths. Come now, turn the mind of my mistress, And make her grow paler than my own face. ^D

LEONIS ALLATII

Then I might believe you, and the stars, and the rivers, Able to be led by Cylean incantations. Tibullus, Eleg. 2, lib. 1: I saw her pulling the stars from the sky, And by her song she turned the rapid river's course. Apollonius, Argon. lib. 3: And she stops the holy rivers flowing with resounding noise; And she bound the courses of the stars and the holy moon. Lucanus, lib. 6: And it suffers such great labors, weighed down by song, Until, nearer, it foams upon the herbs placed beneath. Ovid, XII Metamorph.: Mother Mycale was there, who it was agreed Often by singing drew down the horns of the reluctant moon. Horatius, oda V, Epod.: Which pulls down the stars bewitched by Thessalian voice, And the moon from the sky.

Joannes Passeratius has collected more to the said poem of Propertius. Who of sound mind would not reject all these things as foolish and fabulous, seeing that the authors themselves, who attempted to instill them into the minds of men, refute them by contradicting themselves? Medea, if she had been able, would not have cried out, "If only I could be more sensible, but a new force drags me against my will." Circe, who was believed to be able to do whatever she wished, could not delay her own Ulysses: Ovid sang of this, lib. 1, De remed. amor.: You did everything lest the crafty enemy depart, He gave his sails filled for a sure escape. You did everything, so that the wild fire might not burn you; [Longus] sat in an unwilling heart.

And it is wisely refuted by Hippocrates in his little book De epilepsia: "For if," he says, "a man could pull the moon down from the sky with incantations, then certainly God, and the divine mind, the creator and ruler of the stars, would be subject to the power of men and the incantations of the great—which is a sin to say." The origin of this fable and error arose, as Plutarch reports in his book De præcept. connubial., because men were ignorant of the moon's eclipse, and of the failure of its light during an eclipse. Aganice, are the words of Plutarch, the daughter of Hegetor the Thessalian, skilled in the defects of the stars during full moons, and knowing the time at which the moon would be clouded by the intervention of the earth's shadow, when she predicted this to credulous women as a future omen, she was believed to draw the moon from the sky by incantation. This same thing is confirmed by a fragment of an old poet in Turnebus, Adversar. lib. XIX, cap. 3; and by Martin Delrio, Disquisitionum magicarum lib. II, quæst. 11, and among others by Cleomedes in the place cited. Joannes Wierus has much to this effect in De præstigiis dæmonum lib. II, cap. 17; and Delrio in the said place, who explains at greater length what the power of magicians is over the celestial spheres, stars, and elements.

^A Basilius, hom. 6, De sole: Let not the appearance deceive you, nor because it seems a cubit wide to those who see it, should you reason that it is so great. For magnitudes are naturally contracted in great distances, the visual power being unable to traverse the intermediate space, but as it were being exhausted in the middle, and striking the visible objects with only a small part of itself. Our sight, therefore, becoming small, made the things seen seem small, imposing its own suffering upon the things seen. So if the sight is deceived, the criterion is untrustworthy. Next to these, let us discourse on its eclipse, so that we may not, like old wives, think, when the moon is eclipsed, that they are witches who are purifying it.

^B Just as if someone—Remember your own experiences, and you will have proof of what is said from yourself. If you ever saw a large and level plain from a great mountain peak, how large did the teams appear to you, or how large were the plows themselves? If they did not provide you with the image of ants. But if from a precipice you turned your eyes upon a great sea, how large did the greatest islands appear to you, and how large did one of the myriad-carrying ships seem to you, being carried on the blue sea with white sails, if it did not provide you with the image of something smaller than any dove?

^C For being exhausted—Because, as I said, the sight being exhausted in the air, and becoming faint, does not suffice for the precise perception of things seen, because the movement is not dispersed into the vast, but proceeds straight. And that it is of great size—Do you wish to take the proof of its size from small evidences? The cities throughout the world, being very far apart from one another and turned toward the east, all receive the lunar light equally. And similarly it—[Here follow parallel lemmata.]

^A extends to the open seas, to the shoals, to the depths, and to the rocky places, rising from the equinoctial regions, while those dwelling toward the frozen zone, and those lying beneath the revolutions of the Bear, partake of it, as do the neighbors in the hollows of the scorched southern zone; to all of these, extending across their breadth, it provides the clearest testimony of its magnitude.

And immediately the sea. "A command came," and immediately both active rivers and fertile lakes [each had] its own creatures according to their natural kinds; and the sea brought forth the all-varied kinds of swimming things, and not even the portion that was in the mud and the swamps of the water, not even this remained idle or devoid of the perfection of creation. ^B The gregarious, the solitary, the sea monsters, the massive, the very smallest of the fish. For by the same power and by the equal command, the great and the small partake of being.

Ibid., lin. 27. The gregarious, the solitary. Cicero, *Tuscul.* v, *Congregata et solivaga*. Theodore Gaza, *Gregaria et incivilia*; for Aristotle also teaches in *De hist. anim.*, cap. 1, how some among the gregarious, as also among the solitary, are civil, others solitary.

Ibid., lin. 28. Affinity to water. "Let the waters bring forth." He declares the natural affinity of swimming creatures to water; wherefore, when fish are removed from the water for a short time, they perish. For they do not have respiration in order to draw in this air; but what air is to land-animals, water is to the swimming kind.

Ibid., lin. 19. Of the sea-animals. For the most part, many of these are amphibious, such as seals, crocodiles, hippopotamuses, frogs, and crabs; but yet it is the swimming faculty that they possess as their primary one. Pliny, lib. XXXII, cap. 11: "Now the Dog-fish, *dromones*, *cornutae*, swords, saws, and those common to sea and land, river hippopotamuses, crocodiles: and those only of river and sea, thunnies, *thymnides*, *siluri*, *coracini*, perch," etc. And lib. IX, cap. 3, having a discourse on the beasts of the Indian Sea: "They go out, he says, and beasts similar to cattle [go] there onto land, and having grazed on the roots of fruits they return, and some have the heads of horses, donkeys, [and] bulls, which graze upon the crops." See Pliny lib. IX, cap. 19, and cap. 57, and Athenaeus, lib. VIII, pag. 248. Onesicritus, in Strabo, c. 15, narrates that around Taprobane in India, there are sea-beasts of dubious life born, some similar to oxen, others to horses, others to various terrestrial animals. Ambrose likewise, lib. V *Hex*: "Moreover, since many have feet and the use of walking, in that they are amphibious, which live either in the waters or on land, etc." Varro, IV *De lingua Latina*: "The Greeks call those that can live in water and on land *amphibia*." Columella, lib. VIII, cap. 12: "I come now to those birds which the Greeks call [amphibious], because they desire not only terrestrial but also aquatic fodder; nor are they more accustomed to dry land than to the pond: and of this kind the goose is especially pleasing to country-folk." These Cicero called *ancipites bestias*, lib. I *De nat. deorum*: "Of beasts, some are terrestrial, some partly aquatic, others as it were dubious, living in either habitat."

^C Ibid., lin. 30. For the gills. And the cause is clear, that for us the lungs lie as a rare and many-holed organ, which, through the expansion of the chest, receives the air, fans our inner heat, and cools it. But for them, the expansion and contraction of the gills, receiving the water and releasing it, completes the role of respiration. This same thing Aristotle feels, *De part. anim.*, cap. 6, while saying that fish have no lungs, but possess gills in their place; for by water fish are refrigerated, even as they breathe by air. And lib. IV, cap. 1, that fish lack a lung, and possess gills in place of a lung. Ambrose, lib. V *Hexaem.*, cap. 4, likewise says that what is air to other animals, this is water to fish, without which they cannot live; just as it is necessary for animals to perish when the passage of breath is intercepted. Oppianus *Halieut*. II: "For even to the *nepodes* the air is drawn in with a reflux."

Ibid., lin. 23. The viviparous. "Let the waters bring forth, let them bring forth creeping things." In these small words, what kind is left out? What is not included in the command of creation? Is it not the viviparous, such as seals, and dolphins, and rays, and things similar to these called the cartilaginous fish? Not the oviparous, which are almost all the kinds of fish? Not all that are scaly, not those that have fins, and those that do not?

Ibid., lin. 25. And he commanded only. "Let the waters bring forth creeping things." ^D Ibid., lin. 33. Nor with them by halves. Nothing among fish is by halves, equipped with teeth as the ox and sheep are with us. For nothing among them ruminates, unless some record only the parrot-wrasse. And all are equipped with very sharp points of teeth, so that, if not quickly broken up, the food might flow away; for it was destined, if not sharply cut, to be sent to the belly, to be dispersed in the thinning of the water. [Some say] that all fish are sharp-toothed, except for the one called the parrot-wrasse. Many also have teeth in their tongues and in their palates. The reason for this is that it is necessary, being in liquid, to receive liquid along with the food, and to send this out quickly. For it is not possible to spend time smoothing it; for the liquid flows into the belly; for this reason they are all sharp for division; and again, many [have them] in many places, so that instead of smoothing [it], they might break it into many pieces by their multitude. And they are hooked because almost all the strength...

^A of these things is in them. Pliny, lib. XI, cap. 37, explains well how it is to ruminate, having borrowed his own [data] from Aristotle, though he differs from him in the cause for the tradition, and agrees with Eustathius. Fishes are all serrated, except for the scarus: for this one alone of the aquatic creatures is smooth. Moreover, in many of them [the teeth] are on the tongue and throughout the whole mouth, so that they soften the crowd of wounds which they cannot wear down by friction. In many they are also on the palate, and even in the tail. Furthermore, they are directed into the mouth, so that they do not fall out in those which have no instrument for holding them.

Ibid., line 57. *It ruminates and nothing else.* Basil, hom. 7, Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, cap. 17, and lib. VIII, cap. 2. The same, *De part. animal.*, cap. [missing] and elsewhere. Pliny, lib. IX, cap. 17: *It is said that the scarus alone of fishes ruminates and feeds on herbs, not on other fishes, and it is most common in the Carpathian sea.* Although Horus Apollo B thinks otherwise, for he says that it devours all the little fishes it encounters. See Aelian, *De histor. anim.*, lib. 1, c. 2, lib. II, cap. 54, lib. XII, cap. 42; Ambrose, *Hexaem.* lib. V, cap. 5; Athenaeus lib. VII; Macrobius, *Saturn.*, cap. 16; Isidore, lib. XII, cap. 6, calls it *escarum*: The scarus, he says, is so called because it alone is said to ruminate its food. Finally, other fishes do not ruminate. Yet Aristotle, in *Hist. anim.* IX, last chapter, writes the same of a certain fish which is called *meryx*, though it is not a matter of the present business whether it is the same as the scarus. That is truly ridiculous, for the Potamic mouse (Pontic mouse) to be numbered among the fishes by Rittershusius in his notes on Oppian's *Halieut.*, lib. 1, vers. 134, being deceived by having misunderstood Aristotle's words. For in that place Aristotle says: after he had determined the animals which lack the upper row of teeth and do ruminate, like oxen, sheep, goats, and others, a doubt still remained whether there was any animal among those with teeth on both sides that ruminates, and in response he says there are some, such as the Pontic mice, and fishes, and one which on that account is called *ruminalis* by some. For so that passage should have been translated. Which words, although they are read thus by everyone, I have not doubted to be at all corrupt, or certainly that Aristotle’s greatest ignorance would be detected. For how do fishes ruminate, when among them the scarus alone does so? And if that *meryx* is a fish, while it is included among the fishes, its mention is made in vain; if it is not a fish, why did he not connect it with the Pontic mice? But let us leave these things. Truly, from these words we will never discover the Pontic mouse to be a fish, since Aristotle refers to it in his *History* as separated from fishes and as something different from them. Furthermore, Aristotle, lib. V *De histor. animal.*, cap. 17, writes that the Pontic mouse is white, just as dormice also lie hidden in trees in winter. Pliny confirms this lib. VIII, capit. 37; and Aelian, *De histor. animal.* lib. VI, capit. 41, narrates that they descend a mountain like an army drawn up in battle array, which no one would affirm of fishes unless they were dreaming. As for what Aelian in the fragments of Suidas [says], ^B Billius was greatly hallucinated by ignorance of this name in his version of those words of Isidore of Pelusium, lib. II, epist. [ ]: *Of animals, those which ruminate bring forth young alive; those which drink, produce eggs.* A manifold hallucination: there are more animals that are viviparous than those that ruminate. If all animals that drink are oviparous, then so are cows, horses, sheep, etc.; it is one thing to masticate food, another to ruminate, another to drink, another to deglutinate [swallow]; that signifies to drink, this to swallow. Wherefore Rittershusius remarked well on the same place and translated: *Of animals, those which masticate food and break it up are viviparous, but those which swallow it whole are oviparous.* On the rumination of animals, Hieronymus Mercurialis has noted much in his *Variar. lectionum*, lib. V, cap. 13, and the three following.

Ibid., line 58. Basil, hom. 7: *...that they descend into the belly of the latter.* Concerning the kinds, differences, properties, and foods of fishes, Aristotle, Pliny, Aelian, Conrad Gesner, Achilles Aldrovandus, and others [have written] more.

Ibid., line 42. *The saw [serrated] with fins.* Peter Damian, lib. II, epist. 18, tells of these same things as follows: *The "serra" [sawfish], a sea monster, which, because it possesses long fins, as soon as it sees a ship under sail, also girded with the rowings of its wings, strives to sail after the ship. But, scarcely persisting in the labor of this contest for forty stadia, it fails, and thus exhausted, it deposits its wings amid the marine dangers, and so, by the flying wave, it is compelled and falls back again to the place from which it began to row.* Pliny also mentions the sawfish, lib. XXXII *Natur. histor.*, capit. 11. But it is doubtful whether he refers to this one, since authors do not agree in explaining the nature of the sawfish.

Ibid., line 50. *And the whale as it is called [ ]*. Basil, hom. 7: *But since in the bulk of its body it matches the greatest mountains, it often presents the appearance of an island, whenever it swims up to the extreme surface of the water; these things...*

^A however, being of such magnitude, do not linger about the shores or the coasts, but inhabit what is called the Atlantic Sea. Theokles, in the fourth book regarding the Syrtis, says that there are whales larger than triremes. And regarding the Gedrosian territory (which is a not undistinguished portion of the Indian land), Onesikritus and Orthagoras say that there are whales, half a stadium in length, and with a breadth in proportion to their length; and this is self-evident. They say they possess such power that often, when they breathe through their nostrils, they cast up so much of the sea's surge that to the ignorant and inexperienced these seem to be waterspouts. Eadem habet Ambrosius, lib. v, cap. 6; Isidorus lib. XII, cap. 6. Disertissime item hæc omnia Oppianus, Halieut. II. Consult Plutarch and Pliny, and Peter Damian, lib. II, epist. 18.

Ibid., lin. 14. ^B St. Basil, hom. 7: "I have heard from a certain person on the coast that the sea urchin, a creature entirely small and contemptible, often becomes a teacher of calm and storm to sailors; for when it foresees a disturbance from the winds, it creeps under a stout stone, and, balancing itself upon it as if upon an anchor, it is held by the weight so as not to be easily swept away by the waves."

For there is also a mind in the sharp-witted urchins, And foresight, who understand the might of winds And rising tempests, and each one with its back lifts A stone as heavy as it can easily carry Upon its spines, that, weighted down, they may stand Resistless against the onset of the wave; for this they fear most, Lest the swelling sea, turbulent with toil, should roll them.

Regarding the octopus: I would not pass over the deceitful ^C and thievish nature of the octopus, which, to whatever rock it may at any time cling, assumes the color of that rock; so that many fish, while swimming heedlessly, fall upon the octopus, thinking it to be indeed the rock, and thus become an easy prey to the wily creature.

Regarding intoxication, in a poem to this effect: Halieuticon II, "Nor, like the rock-growing octopus, shift your place According to the ground. Be inaccessible to all, Speak only from your soul. And I loathe the rock-dweller With bloodless tentacles, that turn-coat, Many-colored creature."

Regarding many-friends; regarding those that change their colors.

Col. 725, lin. 7. ^D As to the crab, its flesh: The crab desires the flesh of the oyster. But the prey is difficult for it to capture because of the covering of the shell. For nature has fortified the soft flesh of the crab with a strong barrier. Hence it is also called "shell-skinned." And since two hollows, exactly fitted to each other, enclose the oyster, the claws of the crab are necessarily useless. What, then, does it do? When it sees one in calm, weather-warmed places, and basking with pleasure, and having spread its folds to the ray of the sun, then it secretly inserts a pebble and prevents the closing, and the remaining strength of the shell is found to be overcome by this device.

^A But on the other hand, the sluggish polyp clings to the rocks with its fleshy body, and by this fraud eludes the nets, and under the law of the place, it takes on its color, always similar to that which it touches; and when it eagerly snatches its suspended prey, here too it deceives, when at last, having emerged in the air, it relaxes its arms, and vomits out the plundered hook. Hence the birth of the proverbs: to possess the polyp, the head of the polyp, the mind of the polyp; consult the collectors of adages. Nor must one remain silent regarding the opinion of many, that polyps themselves, whether their feet or cirri, driven by hunger, consume them by gnawing. Hesiod, lib. 1: "As the boneless one gnaws its own foot." Carneades, in Stobaeus, *On Letters*: Carneades said that dialectic is like a polyp, for it too, when its tentacles have grown, consumes them, and these, as its power increases, also overturn their own. Alcaeus: "I have eaten myself like a polyp." Oppian, *Halieutica* 2; Rhodiginus, lib. xiii, cap. 32. Athenaeus, Horus, Eustathius, Hesychius, Suidas, and others write the same. Aristotle, lib. viii, cap. 2, *De histor. anim.*, denies this: "But conger eels eat the polyps," and presently: "But what some say, that it eats itself, is false. But some have their tentacles eaten by conger eels." Plutarch, in the dialogue *Whether Land or Sea Animals are More Clever*, writes that the cirri are consumed by conger eels and moray eels. Pliny, lib. ix, cap. 29: "The opinion that it gnaws its own arms is false. For it happens to it from conger eels; but that they grow back, like the wall lizard, and the tail of lizards, is not false." Ibid., line 20: "The smallest by nature." Basil, hom. 7: "If you hear that the tiniest little fish, or the echeneis, so easily stops the greatest of ships, borne along with spread sails by a following wind, so that it keeps it motionless for a very long time, as if rooted in the sea itself; do you not in this little creature also perceive the same power of the Creator?" Nonnus, *Dionysiaca* 21: "You have heard of the sea-dwelling echeneis, how in the deep The small fish, full of power, often attacks sailors, Pulling them back; and by a small throat-cleft It checked the long ship, held fast by a bond." The same elegantly and copiously, Oppian, *Halieutica* lib. 1; and Lucan, lib. v: "The echeneis not struggling against the prow, while the East wind pulls the ropes, In the middle of the waters." Ovid: "The small echeneis is at hand, a wonder, a huge delay to ships." Plutarch writes the same, II *Symposiac Questions* 7 and 11, *Problem Questions* 7; ^B Ambrose, lib. v, *Hexaem.*, cap. 10; Francesco Petrarca, preface to lib. ii, *De remediis utriusque fortunae*; Lilio Giraldi, *De navigiis*, cap. 5; Joannes Sambucus, *Emblem* 203; Philes, in iambics, called them *navicratas*. Cassiodorus mentions it, lib. *Var.* The Latins called the *echeneis* a *remora* (delay); Afranius and Plautus, according to Festus, *remaliginem*; Petrus Damianus, lib. ii, ep. 18, calls it *echeneide*, *echinam*, which I think happened through the carelessness of scribes and the similarity of the name; therefore, it belongs to Damianus, and let it be written: "Because the *echeneis*, even when small..." and further, "The *echeneis*, therefore, fixes itself in the currents." Isidore, lib. xii, cap. 2: "The *echeneis*," he says, "a small, half-foot-long little fish, took its name because it restrains a ship by clinging to it. Even if winds rush and storms rage, yet the ship seems to stand as if rooted in the sea, and not to move, not by holding, but only by clinging." The Latins called this a *mora* (delay), because it forces ships to stand. Pliny, lib. ix, cap. 25, confirms the same, and lib. xxxii, cap. 1: "Yet all these, and likewise those that impel it, the very small little fish called the *echeneis* holds in itself. Even if winds rush, and storms rage, it ^C commands their fury, and represses such great forces, and forces the ships to stand: for it is not by any chains, nor by the weight of anchors cast with irrevocable force. It restrains the rush, and tames the world's fury with no effort of its own, by not holding, or in any other way than by clinging." This being so tiny is sufficient against so many impetuses to prevent ships from going. But armed fleets place ramparts of turrets upon themselves so that they may fight at sea as if from walls. Alas! human vanity, when that prow, armed with bronze and iron against blows, can be inhibited and held bound by a half-foot-long little fish! Isidore therefore borrowed his account from these Plinian lines, even if you prefer to say he compiled them, not from Ambrose, as Rittershusius notes in Oppian's *Halieutica*, lib. 1. Pliny adds that this little fish held the praetorian ship of Antony at the battle of Actium, and within his own memory, that of Gaius the prince sailing from Astura to Antium: this has also been proven by the experiences of our own times. Guilelmus Rondeletius testifies that he knew of a trireme in which a certain cardinal of Tours was being carried to Rome, and which was inhibited in mid-course to the admiration of all. And I, while I was staying at Venice, discovered that other shells have the same force and are of the same power. They both impede the ship's force and make its course more sluggish if they are attached to the keel or those parts of the ship that are hidden submerged in the waters; therefore, it is the custom for sailors to remove them from those parts while they prepare to go on their journey. Yet in this consensus of nature, and experience of which no one is in doubt, some wish it to be *not* fast, and condemn the things we have said as fabulous and invented. Among them is Gerartus Falkenburgius in his lectures and conjectures on the *Dionysiaca* of Nonnus, to which a response is at hand from Oppian. ^D But what this *echeneis* is, which forces ships to stand, is still a matter of controversy. Those who saw it in the times of Gaius said it was similar to a large slug. Mutianus, that it is a *murex* broader than the purple snail, neither with a rough nor round mouth, nor with a beak protruding into angles, but a simple shell gathering itself on both sides, as Pliny reports. To Strabo it is a *βέλλα*; to others, a little fish. Cardano confuses it with the torpedo, and says that Aristotle, deceived by the similarity of names and the effect, was himself deceived by ignorance of natural things and less attentive reading of Aristotelian doctrine. So also Trebius Niger affirmed it to be a foot long and five fingers thick, Pliny half-a-foot long, Oppian equal in size (*isomēkēs*). Nor do they agree in reporting the cause. Hieronymus Fracastorius,

^A in his work *De sympathia et antipathia rerum*, chap. 8, does not deny that the *echineis* inhibits a ship, but he attributes to the *echineis* the sign of a rock which lies beneath the waters, the force of which rock is able to hold back the ship. Julius Scaliger, in *De subtilitate ad Cardanum*, exerc. 219, refutes him with many arguments, although he brings nothing of his own into the middle, but refers everything to certain occult qualities communicated by the elemental things, which temperate minds do not know: and it is the height of impudence to reduce everything to manifest qualities. Forsooth, this is to practice oneself in the opinions of the most learned, which one does not know how to refute, and by attacking the zeal and impetus of others in investigating the causes of things, to show what one might later be able to do, and how much one might be worth, by consigning the weak forces of human genius or the most occult secrets of nature to oblivion. O truly delightful! O learned head! They have whom frugal men might follow in the sciences; now they will prove themselves to know what they are ignorant of, if they deduce it to those occult qualities which they themselves, forsooth, do not know. But to us, such tiny manikins, that might perhaps be enough. But to Scaliger, whom nothing in the nature of things ever escapes, and who has nothing in common with others. ^B

Ibid., line 23. "The *hydrus* is in the river." Petrus Damianus, lib. 11, epist. 18: "The *hydrus* is an animal living in the whirlpools of rivers, fiercely hostile to crocodiles. Therefore, when it sees a crocodile sleeping with its mouth open on the bank of the river, it rolls itself in the slime of the mud, so that it may glide more easily into his jaws with its slippery body. Then it leaps nimbly into the mouth of the sleeping crocodile, which he, taken unawares, suddenly swallows. But the *hydrus* tears to pieces all his viscera, until, the beast now utterly dead, it emerges alive and victorious from his carcass." Michael Glycas also mentions this animal, lib. 4 *Annalium*; David Hoeschelius and Conradus Rittershusius—the former in notes to Oppian's *Cynegetica*, lib. III, ver. 407, the latter in notes on Ihorus(?), lib. 2, cap. 35—seem to confuse this animal with the ichneumon, and Rittershusius cites a passage from Isidore, lib. XII, cap. 6. The words which he praises from Isidore are: "A little beast so named because it dwells in the waters, and especially in the Nile (this is the name of the beast), which if it finds a crocodile sleeping, it first rolls itself in the mud and enters into his mouth through the belly and, consuming all his innards, emerges alive from his viscera while the crocodile himself is dead." All know of the internecine war between the crocodile and the ichneumon, and that it proceeds to the fight in no other way than by being covered in mud, and thus armored as if by leathern skins. ^C I would believe, however, that the *hydrus* is something different from the ichneumon, since our Eustathius later has a discussion concerning the ichneumon, and clearly explains its war with the asp, concerning which the words of Isidore about the *hydrus* are to be understood. Nor do I find that Solinus thought otherwise, when he writes in chap. 35: "The *enydrus*, having spotted the other kind of ichneumon, penetrates the beast, and having ravaged its vital organs, emerges eroded from its belly." Although Delrius affirms that the words "the other kind of ichneumon" are not contained in the ancient books. Oppian, who wrote the *Cynegetica*, does not permit this, because Eustathius attributes the *hydrus* to the ichneumon. He increases the doubt, since Diodorus makes the ichneumon similar to a small dog, even though Nicander says a weasel. Timotheus, or Theophilus Alexandrinus, in the oration *Tiri*(?), calls this animal, which leaps through the mouth of a crocodile, entering into its belly, and having torn its belly emerges leaving the beast dead, *hylum*, and wishes it to be a winged creature. But more on the ichneumon below. ^D

Ibid., line 30. "The crocodile is." Pliny, lib. XXXI, cap. 11: "Hippopotami and crocodiles are common to land, sea, and river." These same Eustathian matters are read word for word in Achilles Tatius, *The Loves of Cleitophon and Leucippe*, lib. IV. You have an accurate description of the crocodile in Herodotus in *Euterpe*; Aristotle, lib. II *Hist. anim.*, cap. 10; Heliodorus, lib. VI; Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. XXII, part 1; Pliny, lib. VIII, cap. 27; and Johannes Leo in *Descriptio Africae*, lib. IX. Solinus regarding this matter, cap. 35: "The crocodile is a harmful quadruped; it is equally strong on land and in the river; it does not have a tongue; it moves its upper jaw; its teeth are joined with terrible tenacity, with a row of teeth packed together like a comb; it generally grows to a magnitude of twenty cubits; it lays eggs the size of those of geese; through natural providence it measures out a place for its nest, nor does it place its offspring anywhere other than where the waters of the rising Nile cannot reach. In tending the birth, the male and female take turns. Besides the gaping of its mouth, it is also armed with the monstrosity of its claws. It lives in the water at night; by day it rests on the ground. It is surrounded by the greatest firmness of skin, so much so that it repels blows directed at its back by any weapon whatsoever."

^A

Ibid., line 42. It is remarkable what John Leo recounts concerning their diet in *Description of Africa*, book ix: "I have seen more than three hundred heads of these beasts fixed to the walls of Cairo with their jaws distended, being of such great and stupendous size that they could have swallowed a cow whole, with sharp and very large teeth." Egyptian fishermen are accustomed to cut off the crocodile’s head and fix it to the walls of their towns, just as hunters fix the heads of wild beasts.

Ibid., line 43. You have the same description in nearly the same words, with a few changes, in Achilles Tatius, book iv: "Men who had hunted a river beast worth seeing happened upon it. The Egyptians called it the horse of the Nile; and it is a horse, as the account intends, in its belly and feet, except that it divides its hoof at the claw. In size it matches the largest ox. Its tail is short and devoid of hair, for the whole of its body is also thus; its head is round and not large. Its cheeks are like a horse’s, its nostril is very wide-open, and it breathes out fiery smoke, as if from a fountain of fire; its jaw is broad, as is also the cheek. It opens its mouth up to the temples. It also has curved canine teeth, in appearance and position like a horse’s, but three times the size." And Pliny, book viii, ch. 39: "A beast, the hippopotamus, is produced in the same Nile, larger than a horse: with cloven hooves, like oxen, the back of a horse, and a mane, and neighing, with a snub snout, a tail, and the teeth of boars, hooked but less harmful; its skin is impenetrable to shields and helmets unless it is moistened with moisture. It grazes on crops, fixed in advance, as they say, to a determined day, and because of the tracks that bear away from the field, so that no ambushes may be prepared for its return." And book ix, ch. 11, he writes something different from Achilles and Eustathius, stating that hippopotami are covered only with hide and hair, just like water-calves. Concerning this, Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, book ii, ch. 7; Strabo, book xv; John Leo, *Description of Africa*, book ix, who also writes that they are hairless. Regarding its impiety and injustice toward its parents, see Plutarch, book *De solertia animalium*; and how it symbolically denotes impudence. The same, in his book *De Iside*. See Aelian, book vii, ch. 19, *De hist. anim.*, and beyond the others, Horus, book i, ch. 16. ^{B C}

Ibid., line 54. Achilles Tatius, book iv: "First of all, cataloging the nature of the beast, and then the manner of the hunt, how it is most gluttonous, and makes a whole field of grain its food." ^D [Verse] 1. Eastern Indian Hydaspes. 2. There, shearing the river-flow with his foot, 3. The water-wandering, river-born horse grazes, 4. Like the summer-born swell of my Nile, which he scratches, 5. Dwelling as a moist traveler through the deep water, 6. Stature-wise, but he steps upon the shore 7. With a sharp-toothed point, splitting the spine of the wood, 8. And having a moist, unmarked jaw, a reaper of fruits, 9. With a mimicking sickle he cuts the grain-bearing crops, 10. A mower without iron for the sheaf-bearing birth.

Aelian, book v, ch. 53, and Pliny, book viii.

Ibid., line 55. It is hunted by a trap. ^A

Col. 728, line 3. Understand this passage in such a way that you do not think the hippopotamus is surpassed in size; for it equals the largest ox. Achilles Tatius, "Wherefore I restore this passage thus, for it seems mutilated," and "It is indeed an Indian elephant in strength, second; but the beast has the size of an ox."

Ibid., line 5. Aristotle, however, in *De generatione animalium*, book iii, ch. 1, affirms the nature of fish to be colder, and therefore that for them, as for birds, no menses are produced, and that conception consists without intercourse; and in book viii, ch. 19, *De hist. anim.*, he states that fish in cold places have little vigor. Therefore it is not at all surprising that they all feel the icy winter, especially those which are believed to have a stone in their heads; and that when the winters were harsh, many were caught blind, as Pliny relates, book ix, ch. 16; from Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, viii, ch. 19; and thus in these months they lie hidden in caves, some in sands, others in the crevices of rocks. But when they have perceived the mildness of the air and the calmness of the sea, they immediately bring themselves forth and lead dances. Most cultured Aelian, book ix, ch. 57: And yet Aristotle does not deny that fish are gluttonous and greedy, but he refers this to another cause, which seems more probable; for in book iii, *De part. animalium*, ch. 14: "The entire class of fish, since it can digest food less, and passes it out raw, is both voracious and greedy." All other things, too, which have straight intestines, are hungry for food. For since food is quickly expelled, and consequently the enjoyment of it is brief, it is necessary that they seek food again shortly out of greed.

Ibid., line 9. The sea-fox is narrated otherwise by Aelian, *De hist. anim.*, book ix, ch. 12; for he says that the sea-fox, having swallowed the hook, vomits up all its innards like an inverted garment, until it casts out the hook, and then reswallows them. Phile transcribed this from Aelian in *Iambics*:

The swiftest *amiai* and foxes, if they are caught, Straightway speed upward toward the surface, and swiftly Divide the middle line with their teeth, and for this reason the fishermen forge for them On the fishhook a sharper torment for their teeth.

The fish called foxes ^A, when they perceive that they have swallowed the hook, assist themselves in this matter, just as the scolopendra does, the hook-eater.

*And the crocodile.* ^B *For about its belly.* What is the point to you of fasting, or of imitating the Nile crocodiles? They say that they mourn over the heads of the men whom they have eaten, and weep over the remains of their victims—not taking on repentance for what has been done, but, as it seems to me, mourning for the fleshless state of the head, as it is not fit for consumption.

*And He gave to them.* Why did He give to flying creatures their origin from the waters? Because there is a certain kinship between those that fly and those that swim. For just as fish cleave the water, moving forward by the movement of their fins, and steering themselves by the movement of their tail for both turnings and straight courses, so too one can see in the case of winged creatures that they swim through the air with their wings in a similar manner; so that since swimming is a property in both, one is their kinship from the creation of the waters. ^C

Ibid., line 24. *For about its belly.* Pliny, book VIII, cap. 15: *And it is armed with claws, with skin invincible against all strokes; and lower down: In the belly the skin of the crocodile is soft and thin.* Consult Solinus, and others who write concerning the crocodile. And therefore dolphins swimming into the Nile, on whose back there is a fin shaped like a knife for this very purpose, approaching, cut the belly of the crocodiles with that spine. Solinus, book XXXV: *There is also a type of dolphin in the Nile, whose backs have serrated crests.* These dolphins entice the crocodiles with intent to swim, and having dived with fraudulent cunning, swimming under their soft bellies, they cut and kill them. These weep for the heads of the men they have devoured and lament the remains of the dead, as Bishop Asterius of Amasea reports, not led by penitence for the deed, but grieving that the head itself lacks the meat ^D which they themselves devour: *Homily on Fasting*.

Ibid., line 30. *He gave to them.* Basil, *Homily*. Besides this reason, Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, book VI, cap. 10, very well explains what is different in the generation of fish from eggs, and what is common with the generation of birds; and *De anim. incessu*, cap. 17: *Birds, however, and fish act in a similar way. For birds have wings in the upper part, whereas they (fish) have two fins in the lower part, and birds indeed have feet in the supine part of the body, whereas they have fins near their lower parts, and birds furthermore have a rump, but they have a tail.* However, the opinion that birds were produced from the waters seems more probable, since no mention is made of the air in the production of birds. And the most grave doctors have judged this: Jerome, Augustine, Rupert, Ambrose, book V *Hexaem.*, cap. 14; Cyril on the first part of Genesis; Theodoret, book V *Divinorum decret.*; Marius Victor, book I *in Genes.*; Damascene, book II *Fidei Orthodoxae*, cap. 9; Hugo, Richard, and others. They do not, however, agree among themselves about which waters these are from which divine eloquence affirms birds to have been produced. There were not wanting those, such as Cajetan, Catharinus and others, who contend that birds were not made from the waters, but from the earth itself, relying on the words of the sacred Scripture in the Hebrew dialect and the Chaldean paraphrase.

Ibid., line 34. *And of them some are.* Basil.

[GREEK:] They give the lion a chasm of teeth, To fishes, the ability to swim, To birds, to fly, To men, intelligence. For women, he had none left. What then does he give? Beauty, Instead of all shields, Instead of all spears; And it conquers even iron, And fire, being a beautiful thing.

^A And Phocylides: God bestowed on each a nature air-ranging: To birds much speed, to lions strength, To bulls self-grown horns, to bees stings, He gave an innate defense.

Another is the kind of those that eat flesh, and ^B another is the construction befitting the manner of their diet: the sharpness of claws, and a curved beak, and a sharp wing, so that the prey may be easily caught, and once rent asunder, become food for the captor; another is the construction of the granivores, another of those that feed on whatever they find, and in these there are very many differences. And some are anarchic.

Again, among these, some are anarchic, and as the name itself suggests, while others are accustomed to being arranged under a leader, as cranes. And there is also another difference among these, according to which some are migratory and native, while others are naturally inclined to depart very far away, and when winter draws near, to migrate for the most part.

The cock is haughty. The cock is haughty, the peacock is vain, doves and domestic fowls are lecherous, having the urge for intercourse at all times.

There is sense even in irrational animals, Polycrates, according to which they have grasped the diagnosis of their own preservation. The cuttlefish knows the artifice of its own ink and has imposed an incontinence of catch upon hunters. The hook-clawed animals know the strength of their claws. The hare knows how to send away the machinations of the hunter through speed of running and of its feet. The deer, having shed its horns, knows that its nature is weaker to defend against those who have harmed it.

Nature gave horns to bulls, Hooves to horses, Swiftness of foot to hares.

The hawk is most tractable. In parts of Thrace, in the place once called Cedropolis, men hunt birds in the marsh in common with hawks. For some, holding poles, beat the reeds and the thicket so that the birds may fly; the hawks, appearing from above, pursue them; these, being afraid, fly down again toward the earth; and the men, striking with the poles, capture them, and share the catch with them; for they throw some of the birds, and the hawks catch them. ^C

[LATIN:] Phocylides: ^A LEONIS ALLATHII hom. 8: Concerning the genera of birds, their genius, faculties, and other things pertaining to them, there is much, and Aristotle, and Pliny, and Aelian, and Albertus Magnus and others, whom you may consult if you wish. I will bring forward into the middle only one passage of Aristotle from book 11 of *De partibus animalium*, which explains all these things that our author touches upon in brief and very few words, and which can serve as a commentary: Birds have a mouth which is called a beak, for they have this instead of lips and teeth, but variously for use and utility; for those which have crooked claws, since they live on flesh and feed on no fruit, have a beak entirely crooked. For such a thing is more convenient and apt both for holding and for inflicting force; indeed, the force is situated in this and in the claws. Whence it happens that they also have more crooked claws. The beak of other birds is useful for the diet of each, for example, of the strong kind, and the raven kind it is robust and an exceedingly hard bone: of the minute kind it is broad for gathering fruits of the earth, and suitable for catching small animals. Those which live on herbs, and which feed near marshes, such as swimmers and web-footed birds, partly obtain the convenience of a beak in another way, and partly suffice for themselves with the breadth of the beak: seeing that they can probe with a beak of such a kind, as among quadrupeds also is the pig; for it is one that seeks roots. Furthermore, those birds which have a broad beak and eat roots, and those whose diet is similar, some have the end of the beak serrated: for thus the plucking of the herbs on which they live is more easily performed. Nor are animals born thus only to procure necessities, but so that they may have instruments with which they defend themselves from the snares of enemies, whether these be men or beasts, which they know most excellently, and use when the occasion arises. Theophylactus Simocatus in *Quæstiones naturales*, quest. 5: And hawks hunt by a certain partnership. Pliny, lib. x, cap. 24, notes that the swallow is the sole bird among those that do not have crooked claws, that feeds on flesh.

Ibid., line 40. Basilius, hom. 8: ^B Ibid., line 44. Basilius, hom. 8: Lucillius: The cockerel, when the victor cock ^C has honestly raised himself, he lifts himself onto his toes and the tips of his claws.

Ibid. The hawk is most tractable. Aristotle, lib. ix *De histor. animalium*, cap. 36: In Thrace, in that place which is called Cedropolis, men hunt birds in the marsh in common with hawks. For those possessing poles beat the reed-beds and the thicket, so that the birds may fly away: but the hawks, appearing from above, pursue them: and these, fearing, fly down again to the ground; and the men, striking with their poles, take them, and distribute the catch with them: for they usually toss some of the birds, and the hawks catch them. The same things he repeats in the little book *Peri thaumasion akousmaton* (On Wonderful Hearings), where, however, he names Amphipolis instead of Cedropolis, as Pliny, lib. x, c. 8, was translating it thus: In the part of Thrace above Amphipolis, men disturb birds in the woods and reed-beds: they, flying high, force them down. Again, the fowlers divide the captured birds with them. It is handed down that they accept those sent into the heights to themselves: and when it is time for the capture, they invite them to the opportunity by clamor and the manner of their flight. Aelian has similar things, *De hist. animalium*, lib. 11, cap. 42, who says that men stay quiet with nets spread out, and hawks, flying over them, drive the birds into the nets by striking them with fear. The Thracians share the captured birds with them, that they may have faithful allies for fowling. But if the hawks are distracted from them, they dissociate. Which Antigonus Carystius also repeats, cap. 34; Joannes Meursius in his notes, since no one of the ancients mentions Cedropolis, suspects that there is an error in Aristotle not today or...

^A digestion, they vomit them out, so that, with their mouths agape, they may extract the flesh and eat it. Cicero, lib. II, *De natura deorum*: "I have also read that there is a certain bird which is called the *platalea* (spoonbill), that seeks its food by flying at those birds which submerge themselves in the sea; and when these have emerged and caught a fish, it presses their heads with its beak until they lose what they have caught, which it then seizes itself." It is also written that this same bird is accustomed to fill itself with shellfish, and when it has cooked them with the heat of its stomach, it vomits them out, and thus chooses from them what is edible. Pliny, lib. X, cap. 40: "The *platea*, when it has filled itself with devoured shellfish, vomits them out when cooked by the heat of its belly, and thus selects the edible parts by picking out the shells." And Aelian, *De hist. anim.*, lib. III, cap. 20: "The pelicans in the rivers crack open shellfish, then swallow them. And within, in the depths of their stomach, they warm them and vomit them up. And the shells, because of the warmth, come apart just as if they had been boiled; they then extract the flesh and have a meal." Phile has rendered this in iambic verse as follows: "The pelican, having cast the shellfish into its entrails, Brings it back out again, and from the shells It has eaten the flesh, having taken it skillfully. For the heat, having crushed the hinges of the muscle, Loosened the folds which the shell had tightened."

Col. 729, lin. 5. Φιλότεκνον ὁ πελεκάν. Cf. the *Physiologus* of Epiphanius, and Petrus Damianus, lib. II, epist. 18; Jerome, or the author of the epistle to Præsidium, bears witness that the young of pelicans are killed by serpents, and are brought to life by the blood of their parents. Isidore, lib. XII, c. 7: "The pelican is an Egyptian bird dwelling in the solitude of the Nile river, whence it took its name. For Egypt is called Canopus. It is said—if it be true—that it kills its own offspring, and mourns them for three days, then wounds itself, and by the sprinkling of its own blood brings its children to life." Augustine has the same in Psalm CI, and Gregory on the fifth penitential psalm; Albertus Magnus agrees with our Eustathius, who says that the parents, provoked by the children, kill them. Consult Michael Glycas, *Annal.*, lib. I; of these, lib. I, capit. 54. You have another cause for its *philotechnia* (love of offspring) in Aelian, *De natura animalium*, lib. III, capit. 24. Pliny, Cicero, Jerome, and Eucherius called this bird the *platea*, *platalea*, and *onocrotalus*. Consalus Pontius, in his notes on the *Physiologus* of Epiphanius, contends that what is narrated about the pelican cannot be confirmed by any experiment or ancient approved testimony. Wherefore he thinks it was presented to men at the whim of painters, and that no bird of this nature exists anywhere, and he supports this with the opinion of the Hebrews, who admit they do not know what bird the pelican is. Whatever the case may be, this bird was the emblem of Cardinal Julius Antonius Sanctorius, after Gregory XIII, that most excellent pontiff, the first father of the Greek college, its first champion and defender, who,—in order that the sons of the Greeks, escaping from that impious tyranny of the Turks and the darkness of ignorance, might be instructed in the liberal arts and excellent morals,—sustained and confirmed with his own offices and wealth the good works bequeathed by Gregory for the education of students, which had long been failing and tottering, preferring the education of the Greeks to his own profit. And those whom he had already embraced as sons out of a zeal for charity, even if it had been necessary, he would have cherished by the outpouring of his own blood—oh, truly a pelican, truly golden, truly ^D *philotechnos*! Do not be unhappy, Greece, happy are your young men, who in their greatest need have been truly defended by the protection of such a patron. Rejoice, rejoice, that by the example of such an esteemed man, five of your prelates are both nourishing your sons and informing them in morals and sciences, whose praises we do not so much pass over now, as reserve for greater diligence in writing.

Ibid., lin. 11. Οὗτοι δὲ οἱ πελεκᾶνες. Aristotle narrates the same in the book *De mirabilibus auscultationibus*, and lib. IX *De hist. anim.*, cap. 10: "The pelicans which are found in the rivers swallow large mussels and shells; and when in the place before the stomach ^B they have cooked them, they vomit them up, so that ^C ibid., lin. 26. Φιλόκαλον ὁ ταώς. You have a description of this in almost the same words in Achilles Tatius, lib. I: "In this now he displays his beauty, a meadow of feathers. But the meadow of the peacock is more full of flowers. For gold also is planted in its feathers; and a purple circle surrounds the gold in an equal circle, and there is an 'eye' in the feather." Aristotle, lib. I *De hist. anim.*, calls it jealous and *philokalon* (fond of beauty); Aelian explains its ostentation, pride, and arrogance in lib. V *De histor. anim.*, cap. 21; Oppian, *De venatione*, lib. II, and lib. III, who says that nothing more pleasant or beautiful than the peacock has been produced by nature; Phile, in iambics; Georgius Pisida, *De mundi opificio*; Philostratus the Younger, *Heroic.* 2, in *Alexander*; Gregory Nazianzen, *Against women beautifying themselves*; Athenæus, lib. IX, *Deipnosophistæ*; Cicero, III *De finibus*; Columella, lib. VIII, capit. 11; Lucian, *De domo*; Gellius, lib. V, cap. 17; Dio Chrysostom, *Olympic Oration*; Theophylactus Simocatus, epist. 31; Epiphanius in the *Physiologus*; Ovid, and others. Pliny, lib. X, cap. 20: "It expands its bejeweled colors, especially against the sun, because they shine more brightly in this way. At the same time, the reflections of the shade, which are distinct from the others, glow more clearly in the dark, seeking its shell-like tail: he draws all the feathers into a heap, the eyes of which he delights to have gazed upon." Tertullian, lib. *De pallio*: "The peacock is a garment of feathers, and indeed of the finest drapery, nay, more depressed than any shell-fish, where the necks flourish; and more gilded than any border of a robe, where the backs shine; and more flowing than any train, where the tails lie—multicolored, and discolored, and variable in color, never the same, yet always the same whenever it is different; as many times to be changed as it is to be moved." See also Joannes Passeratius, and Ulysses Aldrovandus.

[From Migne's Latin apparatus:] Some report, however, that in the interior of India there is a bird called *semenda*, which has a beak with a triple row of holes, and, like the *ellychnia* (lamp-wicks), perforated on all sides; it sings sweetly when it is about to die, in the manner of swans. Then, gathering twigs, it kindles them by the motion of its wings and is burned; from its ashes a worm is produced, and from that worm the bird is born again. Scaliger, in his exercise against Cardan: "The Phoenix, he says, is not entirely fabulous; we read in the accounts of navigations that it is found in the interior of India. It is called *semenda* by the natives." But the credibility of this history is lessened by the added lie; for they say it has a triple-rowed beak so that it may emit a musical sound, to mimic which the shepherds composed a not unpleasant instrument. ^B

[Continuation of the text:] *Ibid., line 55.* Pliny, book X, chapter 2: "The eagle is reported to be of such magnitude, with the splendor of gold around its neck, otherwise purple/red, with a sky-blue tail distinguished by rosy feathers, its face crested, and its head graced with a plumy apex." Achilles Tatius, book III: "The Phoenix is the name of the bird; its race is Ethiopic, its size like a peacock's, and the peacock is second to it in beauty. Its wings are blended with gold and purple, and it boasts of the sun as its master, and its head bears witness: for a well-formed circle crowns it, and the circle/crown is an image of the sun. It is dark blue, and these are the risings of its wings. The Ethiopians divide its life, the Egyptians its end." If the account is trustworthy to anyone, there is also another mode of generation, something consuming itself and being born again. For if the Phoenix is a bird, it is entirely an animal. And if it is an animal, first it is not entirely singular, in that it is an animal, for it is not merely an animal; furthermore, if it is an animal, it is also a living, sensible body. And if the Phoenix is a living, sensible body, it is clearly subject to generation and corruption. Let us ask the wise observers of beings themselves: is it possible for one of the living and sensible bodies that are subject to generation and corruption to exist as a singular being by the hypostasis of its nature, of which the succession of one by another according to its species is the clear character and boundary of its being, just as the divine Scripture bears witness, providing to the righteous Noah the certainty of the word through itself: "Enter, you and all," etc.? Since if the Phoenix is counted as a winged animal, it does not exist as a singular being by hypostasis according to the divine ^C opinion.

*Another, besides these, we saw, a strange animal,* *Wonderful, such as no one has yet seen.* *For it was almost double the length of an eagle,* *With variegated wings, and colors.* *Its breast appeared purple;* *Its legs were vermilion-colored, and along its neck* *It was equipped with saffron-colored feathers.* *Its head was similar to a tame beast* *And it looked with a yellowish pupil* *In a circle, and the pupil appeared like a berry.* *It possessed a voice the most distinguished of all.* *It appeared to be the king of all birds,* *As one might perceive. For all winged creatures together* *Fled behind it in fear,* *But it, in front, like a bull exulting,* *Walked, carrying a rapid step of the foot.*

This, they say, is "unique." The Arabian Phoenix is said to be a unique bird, without a mate in creation. It undergoes this every 500 years, and it displays a bright resurrection. *And it lives five hundred years.* *And at the time when it is about to perish.* For they themselves, even the Greeks, relate concerning it that, having foreseen its end, it comes to Egypt and stands opposite the sun; then it is reduced to ash, and from its dust a worm...

*Ibid., line 58. Michael Glycas, book I. Annal.*: "The Arabian Phoenix is said to be a unique, unmated bird in creation; it suffers this every 500 years; and it reveals a bright resurrection." And this was the principal argument of Maximus the Martyr: "An animal, therefore, not singular; an animated thing, and endowed with sense; therefore not singular, since no animal alone, no animated thing endowed with sense, while it is subject to generation and corruption, can exist alone."

*Col. 732, line 1:* And as to explaining the period of the Phoenix's life, the authors do not agree. Pliny says it lives 660 years; Solinus, 540; Philostratus, 600; Nonnus, *Dionysiaca* book XL, 1,000; some, according to Tacitus, 1,461; Joannes Tzetzes, from the Egyptian scribe of sacred letters Chaeremon, constantly affirms that it lives 7,000 years; our Eustathius, Herodotus, Tacitus, Horus, Aurelius Victor, Glycas, and others, 500. So also Epiphanius in *Physiologus*, chapter 11.

*Ibid., line 2. And at the time when it is about to...* ^D Michael Glycas, *Annal.*, vol. I: "For they themselves, and the Greeks, recount concerning it that, having foreseen its end, it comes to Egypt and stands opposite the sun, then is reduced to ash, and from its bone-dust/mold..."

arises and is transformed again into a winged creature, the phoenix. Nonnus, in the same place:

And bearing fragrant woods on curved-talon feet, A thousand-year-old wise bird, upon the sweet-scented altar, The Phoenix, bringing the limit of life as a self-sown beginning, Is born, an image of time recurring in equal form, Having loosed age in fire, it exchanges its nature from the fire.

Alcimus Avitus:

Thus the tale which false fame claims for the Sabæans, Where cinnamon is born, the long-lived bird which gathers, Dies with its natal end, and with burnt-down nest Succeeding to itself through sought-out death it rises; Nor content to be born but once in its own order, The long age of its sluggish body is renewed, And frequent fires lighten its unfeeling old age.

Different, however, are the accounts of its death in Horus, lib. II, cap. 57; Origen, lib. IV contra Celsum; Achilles Tatius, lib. III, at the end. Epiphanius in the *Physiologus* says: After it is entirely consumed into ash, on the following day wings are found born; on the third day, the whole priest greets it, and it goes away restored. Albertus: By the power of fire it is turned into ash; on the second day a worm is born in the ash, which on the third day, having assumed its wings, within a few days is changed into a bird of its former shape, and flies off. Artemidorus, *Onirocritica*, lib. II, cap. 49, says the place from which the phoenix flies into Egypt, and to which it soon returns, is unknown. Suidas transcribed Artemidorus under the word Φοῖνιξ. On the phoenix and its pyre, see Peter Damian, lib. II, epist. 18.

^A Ibid., line 10. *And the eagle regarding the rearing.* The eagle is most unjust regarding the rearing of its offspring. For having brought out two chicks, it dashes one of them to the ground, pushing it with the blows of its wings. But the other one alone it takes and treats as its own, rejecting the one it bore because of the difficulty of feeding it. But the *phēnē*, it is said, does not allow this one to perish, but takes it up and rears it together with its own chicks.

^B Versus Musæi concerning the number of eagle eggs is that which Aristotle reports in the said place, and Plutarch in *Marius*:

Which lays three, leaves two, and considers one received, and the phēnē rears [it]. And those cast out cry, and thus it takes them up.

He who, while the chicks are as yet unable to fly, Leads them to a strange test as if they were bastards, Makes the light-bringer a practical judge. For one of them, gazing against the rays, Is one of the dearest, and of the chosen, Seen indeed to be pure of base suspicion.

This latter *Dalecampius* reads as *ἐν δ' ἀληθίζειν*, and wishes the meaning to be that the eagle corrupts or ruins one egg, and hatches two, having laid three; he notes the translator who referred that "one" to the chick, not to the egg. Yet he himself did not attain to Museus' meaning, which, from the history of eagles, he somehow perverts; for it is this: that the eagle produces three eggs, hatches two, and rears—that is, feeds through its own care—one chick, when the eggs are no longer there. Wherefore Aristotle afterwards adds: Although this happens for the most part, namely, to rear one, yet sometimes three chicks are also seen. Nor did Pliny express Aristotle's meaning completely: "They lay three eggs, they hatch two; sometimes three are seen"; for he omitted that which was of the utmost necessity: "it rears one." For thus that exception to the absolute rule, and, as it were, the small note concerning those things which rarely happen, "Three are sometimes seen," would correspond. Nor do I doubt that this is to be attributed to the carelessness of the scribes rather than to Pliny’s negligence; who most perversely take up and twist the best things dictated or written by others.

^C Ibid., line 13. *And the phēnē the one abandoned.* Aristotle, lib. VI *De histor. anim.*, cap. 6, "The one cast out," and lib. IX, cap. 34; Pliny, lib. X, cap. 3: "But the ossifrage, of a related genus, receives those ejected by them, and rears them with its own." Aristotle says this ossifrage does not have strong vision. Peter Damian has the same thing about the eagle, lib. II, epist. 18. Incidentally, however, it is to be noted here that he asserts that the eagle chick cast out is not taken up and nurtured by the eagle which is called the ossifrage, but by a certain common bird, namely the coot: he wishes the coot to be called *phēnē* in Greek. Both are false and contrary to historical truth. For neither is that chick taken up by a common bird; and a coot is one thing, and the *phēnē* is another.

^D Ibid., line 15. *Having nurtured the chick.* The same is in Aristotle in the cited place, and Pliny: "The sea-eagle alone, striking even its still-featherless chicks, forces them to gaze upon the sun's rays; and if it notices one blinking and watering [its eyes], it precipitates it from the nest as illegitimate and degenerate; the one whose gaze stands firm against it, it rears." With Aristotle there is the eagle *aetos*, not the sea-eagle (*haliæetos*), although it is clear to no one that it should be understood as the sea-eagle, since Phile in his *Iambics* relates that this eagle wanders over the sea and shores, from which it receives its name.

^A Cassiodorus seems to have alluded to this in his *Variarum* 1. VIII, epist.: "Just as your offspring, proving themselves after the manner of the eagle, have borne their royal eyes from almost the very cradle."

Ibid., line 21. *Φασὶ γὰρ γηράσαντα* (They say that having grown old). Pliny, lib. x, cap. [3]: "They die not of old age or sickness, but of hunger, because the upper part of the beak grows so that the curvature cannot be opened." Horus has similar things in lib. II, cap. 96; Aristotle, lib. IX, *De histor. anim.*, cap. 32; Epiphanius in the *Physiologus*, and others.

Ibid., line 22. *Καὶ εἰς πηγὴν ἀφικνεῖσθαι* (And to reach a spring). Epiphanius says in the *Physiologus* that it raises itself on high and throws itself upon a sheer crag, against which it strikes its beak; and when it has immersed itself in cold waters, it opposes itself to the solar rays, and then the lippitudes fall from its eyes, and so it grows young again. Peter Damian, lib. II, epist. [18]: "The eagle," he says, "when it has grown old, and its wings have begun to be burdened, and its eyes to grow dim, then it seeks a spring of water, opposite to which it flies until it reaches the circle of the sun, and there, balanced in the purer vastness of the ether, it burns its wings at the heat of the sun and completely burns off the dimness of its eyes. Then descending, it plunges three times into the spring, and thus the vigor of its wings and the sharpness of its eyes are renewed, much better than youth had brought." Many things in this sense, from Jerome, Augustine, Rabbi David, and Vincent, does Pontius collect regarding the cited passage of Epiphanius, which consult. Theodore of Heraclea, however, *Comment. in psal.* CII, denies that the eagle is renewed: ^B *οὐ τοῦτο βούλεται εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἀνακαινίζεται ὁ ἀετός· οὐ γὰρ ἀνακαινίζεται, εἰ μὴ μόνον, ὥς φασιν, ὁ φοίνιξ τὸ ὄρνεον· ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ ὁ ἀετὸς δοκεῖ βασιλεύειν τῶν πετεινῶν ἁπάντων, βούλεται εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἡ παλαιότης ἡμῶν ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἀνακαινισθήσεται εἰς βασιλείαν αὖθις, ὥσπερ ἦμέν ποτε. Διὰ γὰρ τοῦ ὄρνιθος τοῦ ἀετοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν αἰνίττεται* (He does not mean to say that the eagle is renewed; for it is not renewed, except only, as they say, the bird the phoenix; but since the eagle is thought to reign over all feathered creatures, he wishes to say that our antiquity which was in Babylon will be renewed unto the kingdom again, just as we once were. For through the bird of the eagle, the kingdom is signified). Consult also Caelius Rodiginus, lib. XIII, cap. 20.

Ibid., line 29. *Ὁ δὲ γὺψ ὑπηνέμιος* (But the vulture is wind-begotten). Peter Damian, lib. II, epist. 18: "It is reported that vultures, unlike other birds, do not indulge in mating: but conceive without any mingling of the masculine sex at all." How this happens, Horus narrates at length in lib. I, cap. 11; Plutarch, *Roman Questions* [93]; Aelian, lib. II, cap. 46: "They say that a male vulture has never been born, but all are females. For indeed creatures, knowing this and fearing the desolation of offspring, see such things for the procreation of children. They fly facing the south, and if the south wind is not blowing, they gape toward the east wind, and the incoming air fills them, and they conceive." ^C

Ibid., line 33. *Καὶ λαβὼν τὸν εὐτόκιον* (And taking the stone of easy birth). That the *eutocius* stone is the *aetites* (eagle-stone), it ought to be doubtful to no one, since what Eustathius relates about the *eutocius*, others say of the *aetites*. Pliny, lib. x, cap. IV: "In the nest of the first three and the fifth class of eagles is built the stone *aetites*, which some have called *gagates* (jet); it is useful for many remedies, losing nothing in fire. This stone, moreover, is pregnant, and when you shake it, it sounds as if it has a stone in its womb, but that medical virtue is not lost except when torn from the nest." Where Pliny does not distinguish enough, while he confuses the *gagates* with the *aetites*. Consult the book itself, lib. XXXVI, cap. [19], and Galen and Dioscorides. Harpocration of Alexandria calls this stone *ocytocion*, and distinguishes it from the *aetites*: *Ὠκυτόκιος λίθος ἐστὶν ἐοικὼς τῷ ἀετίτῃ, μικρότερος δὲ ἐκείνου, πλὴν ἀπηχῶν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος, ἐν τῷ κινεῖσθαι παρὰ τὸ οὖς. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ λεῖος τῇ θέα* (It is an *ocytocion* stone resembling the *aetites*, but smaller than that, except that it echoes, like that one, when moved near the ear. It is also smooth to the sight).

Ibid., line 35. *Καὶ ἀποτίκτει* (And it brings forth). Pliny, lib. x, cap. 6: "The fetuses are indeed seen to be almost always two." Umbricius, the most skilled of the augurs in our age, relates that they lay three eggs: one of which they [use to] sweep the other eggs and the nest, and soon throw it away. Aristotle has the same in *De hist. anim.*, lib. VI, cap. 6. However, lib. IX, cap. 11, he writes: "It produces no more than one egg, or at the most two." ^D Which if you correctly consider the nature of birds, who is so unjust that he would dare to deny that the vulture is a bird that produces eggs? But there have been some who said that they do not hatch eggs, but bring forth chicks, and that these are capable of flight immediately upon birth. Aelian, lib. II, cap. 46: "That vultures do not lay eggs, I am convinced, but that they are in labor with nestlings. And as they are feathered from birth, I have also heard this." And they bring forth living creatures, not wind-begotten. Therefore, nature requires a very long time for the completion of the living creature.

^A Gratifying, migratory, hospitable stork, Cultivator of piety, slender-legged, clattering-beaked, An exile bird of winter, etc.

See Hadrianus Junius, *Animadversiones*, lib. vi, cap. 15.

*Ibid.*, lin. 47. *By what reason...* For how storks heal themselves when they have received a wound, Aelian, lib. v, cap. [missing]; and Aristotle.

*Ibid.*, lin. 48. *If it should grow old.* Basil, *hom.* 8: Those who surround the father, who has molted his feathers on account of old age, in a circle, warm him with their own wings, and by preparing nourishment in abundance, they provide the possibility of strength, even in flight, gently lifting him up on either side with their wings. And this is so celebrated among all, that now some call such a return of favors ^B *antipelargesis* (stork-repayment). Aristophanes, in *Birds*:

There is for us birds a law Ancient, in the tablets of the storks: When the father stork has made All the stork-children able to fly, feeding them, The fledglings must in turn feed the father.

...at the end: *to return the stork-favor*, "Why was I not destined to look upon my sister, whom I reared in my own arms? Such were the nourishments I received from her; thus she now returns to me the righteous favor of a stork."

*Ibid.*, lin. 44. *But the storks.* The [nature] of the storks is not even far from rational intelligence, so much so that at one specific time they all dwell in the regions here, and in such a way that they depart all at once by a single mandate. And the crows among us escort them and accompany them, it seems to me, providing a certain alliance against hostile birds. ^C And the first sign is that a crow does not appear at all during that time; then, that when they return with wounds, they carry clear signs of their defense and joint-combat. ^D *[Original Latin column commentary on vultures and their naming, including the account of the African vulture in Libya and the Atlas mountains, where it is called "Sner," and the claim that it is fed by its young as long as it is bare of feathers, followed by Scaliger's criticism of the etymology of the Greek word for vulture versus the stork-favor.]* [alt-version omitted]

^A Georgius Dousa, in his commentary on the little book of Georgius Codinus *De rebus patriis Constantinopoleos*, translated the Greek words thus: "Not long after, when the birds had taken on an unfriendly mind, they brought death, and threw snakes caught in the water onto the public road, and the citizens were struck with amazement."

It does not agree with all these, nor is it from them but from the base of the word which is explained by the name; yet it is said to be true only of the vulture. How then does *antigypizein* explain this? But to Scaliger, just as all things sound, so is this; and Scaliger fashions it thus. Not so the Greek, who, if he wished to form it from the vulture, would certainly not incongruously say it, so as to express this nature of the vulture, just as he had used the word *pelargein* to express the nature of the stork. Behold the petty Greek scholars whom you wrongfully and against all justice tear apart, inequitable as you are; yet they know both your ignorance and your trifles: sell your smoke to others; they possess the light.

The pen is annoyed that it cannot record the benefit of the storks to the Byzantines, by whose help that city repelled the harm of snakes. For while Dinaeus was leader of the Byzantines, very many dragons infested the city and brought destruction to the citizens; they removed them with the help of imported storks. Afterwards, when the storks became harmful to the citizens and brought death to many—because they would throw snakes into wells and thus infest the waters, or because they would unexpectedly drop them upon the citizens in the marketplaces—the people were anxious with fear and, wanting a council, Apollonius of Tyana brought them help with three storks carved from stone, set facing one another, which thereafter were a hindrance to other storks from coming up to the city. The author of this story is Hesychius Milesius in his little book ^B *De rebus patriis Constantinopolitanis*. His words are: "Dinaeus, in fact, set up three storks carved from stone, facing one another—a breed of storks." These things have been falsely translated otherwise into Latin, since the Latin does not correspond to the Greek meaning of the author. For it was not that the storks were pulling snakes out of the water to throw them into the public squares; rather, the storks, having taken the snakes, were throwing them partly into the wells or cisterns, whose waters were being poisoned by their venom and thus rendered harmful to the drinking citizens, or at least suspected; and partly they were throwing them onto the citizens themselves, while performing other actions or lingering in the marketplaces and public squares, unexpectedly and without the people even noticing. Wherefore the citizens, both from fear of danger and in ignorance of a remedy, were pressed by the greatest hardships. Through a like error and an equal ignorance of the meaning in similar words and the same subject, although in a different author, ^B "And all the cranes together. How do the cranes organize their nightly watches by rotation? Some sleep, while others circle round, providing for them complete security in their sleep. Then, when the time of the watch is fulfilled, the one that has called out turns to sleep, and the one that has taken over the succession returns in turn the security it has received. You will see this same orderliness also in their flight. For one time one, another time another, takes over the guidance; and having led the flight for a set time, it goes to the rear and entrusts the leadership of the journey to the one after it." Similar things are written by Aristotle, *Hist. anim.*, bk. ix, ch. 10; Pliny, bk. x, ch. 23; Phile in his *Iambics*; Aelian, bk. iii, *De hist. anim.*, ch. 1.

Col. 733, line 1. "On their sleeping." Pliny, bk. x, ch. 23; Plutarch, *De solert. animal.*; Horus, bk. ii, ch. 94; Aristotle, bk. ix, *De hist. anim.*, ch. 10; Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 2, *de Theologia*; Aelian, bk. iii, *De hist. anim.*, ch. 13; Maximus of Tyre, orat. 40; Cicero, *De natura deorum*; Solinus; Andreas Alciatus, bk. *Parergon.*, ch. 20, who treat of the watch-keeping of cranes and their flight. And Cassiodorus, bk. ix, epist. 2: "Cranes know how to practice moral harmony; among them no primacy is sought, because the ambition of iniquity is not present. They watch in turn, they protect themselves with common caution, the very grazing is alternate. Thus honor is taken from no one, while all things are kept under common management. Their flight is also arranged with vicarious equality; the last becomes the first, and that which held the primacy does not refuse to be behind. Thus, united by a certain community, they obey without kings, they follow without dominance, they serve without terror. They are free by serving voluntarily, and are protected by loving one another. The writers of these things, observing the nature of things, record that there is a kind of polity among them, for they have recognized that they live with a civic affection." But what many recount concerning the stone which cranes use as a ballast while they fly, Aristotle says is false, *Hist. anim.*, bk. viii, ch. 12: "But of birds, the cranes, as has been said, move from the furthest regions to the furthest, flying with a following wind. What they recount about the stone is false; for they say that they hold a stone as a ballast, which, when it has fallen, is taken and said to be useful for the testing of gold." Nor must we pass over in silence what Julius Scaliger observed in his *Poetics* against the Greeks. That the story which Homer relates about the battle of the cranes and pygmies is a "little Greek fable." Since this was Homeric, told by Homer, it is no wonder if it does not please Scaliger. It is a wonder, however, how it did not please him, given that Aristotle affirms the same thing. For here, in book viii of *De hist. anim.*, chapter 12 or

^A 15, as Scaliger wishes, he writes thus: “This is the place regarding which the Pygmies dwell. For this is not a fable, but is according to truth, a race small indeed as is said, and themselves and their horses, and they are cave-dwellers in their manner of life.” Whose opinion is that; that is the place which the Pygmies inhabit: for this is not a fable, but it is according to truth, a race small, as is reported, and themselves, and their horses, and as the rest of the troglodytes lead their life. By which words, what is more manifest? He denies it to be a fable, [and] confirms that it is so according to truth, as is commonly circulated, that the Pygmies and their horses are small. How then a fable? He says the philosopher, always moderate and prudent, added “as it is said.” Certainly he has grasped neither the mind nor the sentiment of Aristotle. For that “as it is said,” and with me, reader, consider the words of Aristotle, does not refer to the fable, as if Aristotle wishes the fame of the Pygmies not to be a fable, but refers to the Pygmies themselves, who, as they are said, are of a small race, since Aristotle did not see them. But see the man’s worst audacity and rashness; in his Latin interpretation he omitted what he thought would fight against himself, and rendered: “Those places are what the Pygmies inhabit: a small race, as they themselves say, and even their horses: and they inhabit caves.” Is this, Scaliger, a true, faithful interpretation, and one which you would not criticize in others? To omit things that make against your opinion? Those words “some shrew-mouse, I think,” are what from your copy you have gnawed away—you to whom, so that you might not be ungrateful in returning the favors, you should rather have committed these affairs of yours, such as they are, to be gnawed away. But these things await worse fates. Go now, you for whom so great a man is a god, and inflate your mind with his interpretations and sentiments. But concerning these we shall speak more at length in our *Homer vindicated from calumnies*.

Ibid., line 6. *The race of geese.* Basil, hom. 8: “How watchful is the race of geese, and most keen toward the perception of things escaping notice.” ^B Who at one time saved the royal city, by announcing certain hidden enemies who, by hidden tunnels, were already intending to seize the citadel of power. And thus, *of enemies*. Upon which Philip, king of the Macedonians, son of Amyntas, having brought up a great force, besieged the city, and approaching the walls with trenches and all kinds of military engines. And indeed he would have taken it, having caught it on a moonless night, and with a monstrous downpour of rain having burst forth, had not some divine alliance of his own awakened the dogs throughout the city to barking, and brought clouds of fire to the northern parts; from which the populace, being awakened, and having joined in the fray warmly with the enemies, rescued the city already having fallen under Philip. *By those creeping through tunnels*. About the middle of the night, having climbed up together, from the rock they were moving upward in silence.

*The kingfisher is a sea-bird.* Basil, hom. 8: “The kingfisher is a sea-bird. It is natural for it to nest upon the shores, depositing its eggs on the sand; and it nests about the middle of the winter, when the sea is lashed against the land by many and violent winds. But nevertheless, all the winds are lulled to rest, and the sea-wave is quiet, when the kingfisher incubates for the seven days.” For in only as many days does it hatch its chicks. And since they have need of food, the generous God provided another seven to the tiny animal for the growth of the chicks. Its affinities are reported by Petrus Damianus, book ii, epistle 18; the alcyon is described by ^C Pliny, book x, chapter 32: “The bird itself is a little larger than a sparrow, blue in color, for the greater part, only with purple and white feathers mixed in, with a slender and long neck.” All of which he had from Aristotle, *De histor. animal.*, book v, chapter 8, and book ix, chapter 14. Of this bird, which seems to be very rare, as Aristotle and Pliny report, Pacuvius makes mention in *Teucro*:

“Like one frenzied and moved by the sacred rites of Bacchus, ^D Staying on the hills of my Teucer. In the manner of an alcyon I speed flying along the shore.”

Plautus in *Pseudolus*: “By Hercules, you are undone, unless you make it for me as tranquil As the sea is sometimes, when the kingfisher there rears her chicks.”

^A They report two kinds, and that they are distinguished by size and song; the smaller ones are in the reed-beds. The males are called *ceryli*, as Antigonus Carystius notes in his book *On Wonderful Narratives*. He says that when they reach old age and lose their strength, and can no longer fly, they are carried on the wings of the females. Alcman, now an old man and sick, and unable to lead dances with the maidens, wishes to be carried by the maidens after the likeness of the *ceryli*.

That which relates to the *cerylus* itself, which is distinguished by its blue and purple colors, does not relate to the sea waves, as Guilielmus Xylander rashly translated it.

Ibid., line 30. Plutarch, in his book *On Parental Affection for Children*, describes the wonderful structure of the kingfisher's nest in most elegant terms, which he explains at greater length in his book *On the Industry of Animals*. See above all Aelian, book IX, *On the Nature of Animals*, ch. 17, who describes the structure of such a nest with admirable eloquence.

Ibid., line 15. “When therefore it sits on its eggs.” And therefore those days are called *alcyonides* [kingfisher days], from those living a tranquil and idle life. Aristophanes in *The Birds*.

Consult Lucian’s dialogue titled *Alcyon*. Virgil, among his prognostications of future weather, refers also to this:

*Not in the warmth of the sun do the birds beloved by Thetis spread their wings on the shore.*

Theocritus also alluded to this. ^B They deceive their own mates, because they shatter their eggs through the intemperance of lust, so that they might not be detained by incubation. Hence also that coined word in Aristophanes' *Birds*, *ekperdikizein*, i.e., to slip away astutely and avoid danger. See Rodiginus, book XXIX, ch. 26. Nevertheless, as I believe, our author here called it so because of its intemperance of lust, concerning which see Horus, book II, ch. 95; Pliny at the place cited; Athenaeus, book IX; Aelian, book I, ch. 5; Aristotle, book IX, *On the History of Animals*, ch. 8, which, not content with the strength of other animals, wickedly exerts itself upon males; and it mixes itself not only with the same species, but also with birds of a different kind, if we believe Aristotle, *On the Generation of Animals*, ch. 5. Origen, homily 4 on Jeremiah: "It is also unclean, so that those hunting [I read *chereuontas* for *thēreuontas*] contend with one another regarding mating, and the male, after victory, mounts the male." Unless, however, you wish to read the passage differently, after Basil, homily 8: For thus you will refer it not to its lust, but to a cunning and malicious disposition, by which it provides help to hunters so that they might capture others that are deceived. ^C

Ibid., line 22. "Working together with the hunters." For they allure others with their voice, and set out unexpected snares for their companions, and cast the prey to men. Theodoret, *Catena on Jeremiah*, ch. 17. *Illices* [allurers] in Latin, in Greek *paleutriai*. Wherefore Turnebus also, *Adversaria*, book XXIV, ch. 38, reads the passage of Pliny thus: "They are also caught by combativeness, when the leader of the whole flock goes out to battle against the fowler's decoy." Oppian, *On Hunting*, book I. Men use partridges to catch fallow deer, and fallow deer for partridges; for, conquered by mutual familiarity and cohabitation, they have neighboring nests and feed in the same place.

Ibid. Isidore, book XII, ch. 7, "So fraudulent that it steals the eggs of another and sits on them: fraud has no fruit. Finally, when the chicks hear the voice of their own mother, by a certain natural instinct they abandon the one who hatched them, and return to her who gave them birth." Ambrose has similar things, book VI, ch. 3, in *Hexaemeron*; Phile in his iambics; Epiphanius in the *Physiologus*, ch. 9; Jerome on ch. 17 of Jeremiah, on which passage Hippolytus the martyr also [speaks] in the *Catena*. ^D

^A ...or of the peacock's tail, not to be noted, on account of the continuous flux of light and of atoms, which Lucretius, book II, asserted in these verses: *Just as the plumage of the doves is seen in the sun, / Which crowns the neck and circles round the throat. / For sometimes it becomes red like clear pyropus, / Sometimes it seems, in a certain sense, / To mingle green emeralds with the sky-blue, / And the peacock’s tail, filled with broad light, / Changes its colors in similar fashion when turned.*

Olympiodorus: Chrysostom on the same passage: They say that for partridges, this is a custom: after the hatching of the eggs, to call the chicks by a cry, and to deprive them of their mother. (I read: *It is a custom, he says, for partridges, after the chicks have been born, to be called by the voice, and for the one that bore them to be made naked.*)

Ibid., line 26. *The dove is lascivious.* For the male, when it has grown stronger than the companionship of the mother, drives its own father away from the mother, and thus mates with her. ^B And the necks of the doves appear different in color according to their various inclinations. *Such things, too, concern the reeds for them, / Skilled in dense thoughts, the discoverers / When they adorn the chicks with the habits of the dove. / For when the quick doting-birds go to love, / Mingling with the deep-voiced mouths of the mate, / Then the bird-keeper weaves worthy counsel, / And near the females he placed many manifold / Purple garments. And they, having cast down their shy eyes, / Moved in spirit, bring forth sea-purple children.*

*The crow is fond of its offspring.* The crow’s love for its offspring is praiseworthy—and it follows them when they are already flying, feeding them and rearing them for a very long time.

Ibid. *There is a tree.* *Such is nature.* *And one-mated.* *Crows are most faithful to one another; and when they come together into a fellowship, they love them very strongly.*

Sextus Empiricus, *Pyrrhon. Hypotyp.*, book I, ch. 14. Which Jerome expressed thus: *The necks of doves change color at each turning.* Martianus, *De nuptiis*; Philo: Arcesilas, he says, looking at a dove’s neck, was in doubt: for since it begins more to build up uncertainty by this shifting of variety. Apuleius, *De asino*, book II: *Now azure with a crow-like blackness...* ^C ...it imitates the flower of the dove’s neck, or when anointed with Arabian spots, and is distinguished by the thin tooth of a sharp comb. But the manner in which doves become iridescent was expressed by Oppian, book I, *De venat.*, verse 548.

Ibid., line 40. Basilius, *Hom.* 8: Of this, Horus treats in book X, chapter 97, and Aristotle, *De histor. animal.*, book VI, chapter 6: Almost all birds that have hooked talons expel their chicks from the nest as soon as they have the power to fly, striking them and forcing them to depart; and other birds, too, for the most part, do the same, as has been said; and when they have reared them, they provide no further care, except for the crow, which provides for some time: for it accompanies its chicks while they are already flying and feeding them. And Pliny, book X, chapter 12: *Moreover, this one alone, even when they are flying, feeds its young for some time in the most inauspicious season, that is, after the solstice. All others of the same genus drive their young from their nests and force them to fly, just like the crows; which themselves are not only fed on meat, but also drive their robust young ones further away.*

Ibid. Petrus Damianus, book II, ep. 18: There is, he says, in the regions of India a tree which in Greek is called *peridexium*, the fruit of which is excessively sweet and very delightful; wherefore, on account of this tree, doves are not a little delighted; for its shade refreshes them, and the fruit sustains them. ^D A terrifying dragon pursues them with feral cruelty and, with its bleeding throat agape, strives to swallow them. But just as the doves fear the dragon, so too the dragon fears the tree mentioned before, but especially it fears the shade, so that if the shade is on the right side of the tree, though it may be far away, it flees to the left; but if the shade is perceived on the left, it turns to the right. As long, therefore, as the doves have remained under the shade of that tree, that cruel beast can harm them with no snares, otherwise, if it finds them far away, it attacks suddenly without any obstacle of resistance.

Ibid., line 34. Anaxagoras: *The certain color of the feathers on the neck of doves...*

Ibid. *The males, joined to the females in marriage, are always faithful, never turning to another mate, and not even the females themselves, as long as they live, to another; but they live thenceforth always alone separated, as Horus testifies, book I, ch. 8. Plutarch in Gryllus, Gregory Nazianzen in his Admonition to Virgins; likewise Aelian, book III, De histor. anim., c. 9.*

^A One would not see these animals mingling indiscriminately and as it happens. Those who are precise about these things say that even if one of them dies, the other remains widowed. I hear that men of old used to call for the crow at weddings after the wedding hymn, giving this as a token of harmony to those coming together for the begetting of children. And as for the night-raven. A night crow. ^B You might say you see the vulture that frequents the wilderness, or the night-raven, a dweller on bare ground, or some sleepless sparrow alone in a house. The hoopoe is very affectionate. This hoopoe does not make a nest like those who nest by themselves, but enters into tree trunks and lays in their hollows, gathering nothing together. And the swallow lays but once. Other birds increase, as the saying goes, but swallows do not, and their mating is the opposite, and nature knows the cause. The more common account says that they shudder at Tereus and fear that perhaps he might creep up secretly and work a tragedy even now. As it is being built. For that one, when building the nest, carries the twigs with its mouth, but since it is unable to carry the mud with its feet, it wets the tips of its feet with water, and then, having become coated with the finest dust, it thus imagines the need for the mud, and by little and little, having bound the twigs to one another as if with some glue, in that it rears its fledglings. But the swallow, ^C when it has a supply of mud, carries it with its claws and forms the nest. But if there is a shortage, as Aristotle says, it wets itself and, having fallen into the dust, mixes it with its feathers, and when the mud has stiffened, it then scrapes it off with its beak and performs the proposed construction. And since the fledglings are soft and bare of down, it knows well that if it were to rest upon bare twigs, they would be punished by pain. Therefore, it alights upon the backs of sheep and pulls off some wool, and from this it has laid a soft bed for its own babies. For that one rolls itself in the mud and builds a nest for its nestlings, intending to die. Menander on the turtledove. They say of the turtledove that once it has been separated from its mate, it no longer accepts communion with another, but remains uncoupled in memory of the one formerly mated, renouncing companionship with another. The ringdoves are spoken of as the most chaste of birds. The male and the female, having mated and, as it were, breathed as one, enter into marriage with each other, and they are chaste, and neither of the birds would touch the bed of another. And if they grow jealous of others, ^D the rest surround them; and the males tear the male [to pieces], while the females [tear] the female. Thus, then, the law of chastity reaches even to the turtledoves, and remains immutable, and reaches even to the white doves, except for the killing of each bird; for they slay the male, but they pitied the female and left her unharmed, and she goes about a widow. ...discourse. ...asides, and outside the scope

of the present matter, I have judged it superfluous to enumerate them here. However, my opinion is confirmed by what Cornelius Celsus writes in book VI, chapter 9. "The flat fish," he says, "which our people call the stingray [pastinaca], ^A its sting is roasted, then ground up, and mixed with resin, which, when applied to a tooth, relieves it." And Pliny, in book IX, chapter 48: "But there is nothing anywhere more detestable than the sting that rises above the tail of the trygon, which our people call the stingray, five fingers in size." For this reason, Epicharmus called it "rear-sting" [ὀπισθόκεντρον], according to Athenaeus, book VII; but in a clear and open matter, it should be enough to have hinted at these things.

Ibid., line 58. "But the domestic fowl" [Αἱ δὲ κατοικίδιοι]. Basil, Homily 8; and Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book V, chapter 13; and Pliny, book X, chapter 53. And the reason is at hand: because they are more cunning, and less subject to the revolutions of the seasons, nor are they broken by labors, or put to flight by fear or storm.

Col. 736, line 1. "But the water-loving animals" [Τὰ δὲ φίλυδρα]. Basil, Homily 8. "Again, having studied the water-loving animals, you will find a different construction in them: their feet are neither split, like those of the crow, nor hooked, like those of the carnivorous birds, but broad and webbed, so that they may easily swim in the water, as if pushing away the moisture with their foot-webs, as if with certain oars."

Ibid., line 6. "But the swan is longer" [Ὁ δὲ κύκνος μακρότερον]. Basil, Homily 8. "But if you look at how the swan, lowering its neck into the depths, fetches food for itself from below, you will then find the wisdom of the Creator; for He added a neck longer than its legs, that it might, as if lowering a fishing line, secure the food hidden in the depths."

Ibid., line 8. "But of the birds, many" [Τῶν δὲ ὀρνέων πολλά]. Concerning this, see Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book IX, chapter 12, and book X, chapter 19.

Ibid., line 9. "For the blackbird" [Ὁ γὰρ κόττυφος]. Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book IX, chapter 49. And many other birds change according to the seasons—both their color and their voice; for instance, the blackbird, which instead of black becomes yellow, and changes its voice. For in the summer it sings, but in the winter it clatters and becomes noisy. Pliny held that this was the case in the aforementioned place. "The blackbird turns from black to reddish; it sings in summer, stutters in winter, and becomes silent around the solstice."

Ibid., line 10. "But the nightingale, as to color" [Ἡ δὲ ἀηδὼν τὸ χρῶμα]. Basil, Homily 8. "How sleepless is the nightingale, when it sits on its eggs, not ceasing its melody throughout the entire night." Consult Aristotle in the same place. Pliny expresses the variety and sweetness of the nightingale's song most elegantly in book X, chapter 29, as does Homer. ^B

Ibid., line 14. "Some of the birds" [Ἔνια δὲ τῶν ἐρνέων]. See on these Aristotle, Aelian, Pliny, and others.

Ibid., line 16. "But also the belly-heavy ones" [Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ὑπογαστρίους]. Consult Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book VI, chapter 1, and Pliny, book III, chapter 53.

Ibid., line 19. "But the female birds" [Αἱ δὲ θήλειαι ὄρνεις]. Aristotle, *De generatione animalium*, book IV, chapter 5, says: Horus writes concerning the eagle: "While other animals do not always wish to submit to every mating at sea, the eagle always does. For after it has risen having been mated thirteen times in a day, if the male calls, it runs back again, so prone is it to Venus." Thus Oppianus, book II, *Cynegetica*, says that the lust of bears is unbridled, so that they do not even abstain from intercourse during the time of gestation; Pliny, book VII, chapter 11. "Few animals besides the human female know intercourse while pregnant. One or another may conceive again." Lactantius provides the cause for this in *Divinae Institutiones*, book VI, chapter 23; and Ambrose, in his *Hexaemeron*, book V, chapter 10, says that this is the cause of the uncertainty in the time of coitus, and why, in the human race, the woman has no fixed and established time of the year for giving birth, as do almost all other animals. You have an example of this in the most chaste Zenobia, queen of the Palmyrenes, in Trebellius Pollio.

Ibid., line 22. "But the beetles, if" [Οἱ δὲ κάνθαροι ἐάν]. The same is reported by Theophrastus, *De odoribus*; the collector of the *Geoponica*, book XIV, last chapter; Aristotle, book ^C *De mirabilibus auscultationibus*; Aelian, book IV, chapter 18. "Therefore it is no wonder if this most impure animal was so dear and delightful to the most impure Mahomet, that by the command of God he offered it in sacrifice." For he speaks thus in the person of God, as Euthymius writes in the *Panoplia*: "A truly admirable sacrifice, and magnificent, and worthy of such a lawgiver."

Ibid., line 23. "But the bees and wasps" [Αἱ δὲ μέλισσαι καὶ σφήκες]. Basil, Homily 8, on the same subject. Pliny, book XXI, chapter 12, says that it is certain that bees do not touch the flower of the olive, and therefore it is better that this tree be at a distance; which he had previously reported as empty and false in book XI, chapter 8. "False; and I think the olives are avoided, since it is certain that very many swarms are born from the olive's produce." Nor does Aristotle seem to have thought otherwise, in *De historia animalium*, book V, chapter 22, in those words: "Therefore they are borne by the same nature to eat the fruits of the olive, and the bee, and what brings harm to the olive is also a nuisance to the bees." That olives produce less oil during rains has been learned through many reasons and experiments, and Theophrastus confirmed it in *De causis plantarum*, book VI, chapter 11, that "it is not in the abundance..." ^D

^A of these things, but in their proper fleshy consistency that the quality of the oil..." Consult the place and chapter of the same book. But that which our Eustathius says here, everyone will judge to be true, who is not ignorant that the passages of these animals are most restricted; wherefore they are also greatly tormented by foul odors, and even by the delights of unguents, and they strike those who are anointed with them. Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book IX, chapter 40: "This animal is the cleanest of all, wherefore very often, when the necessity of the bowels is upon them, they fly away, and in a secluded place they void their excrement, because it smells bad; they hate not only foul odors, but also the delights of unguents: from which it happens that men anointed with these are struck by them." Aelian narrates the same in *De historia animalium*, book V, chapter 14. From this also it happens that they touch no carcass. Pliny, book XI, chapter 25.

Ibid., line 25. "They revive, therefore, with vinegar." Pliny narrates another method of resuscitation, book XI, chapter 20: "There are those who think that if dead ones are kept within a building during winter, then heated by the vernal sun, and kept warm for a whole day with fig ashes, they revive." This, however, Hyginius had handed down, having followed older authors. Columella, *De re rustica*, book IX, chapter 13: "But that which Hyginius handed down, having followed older authors, I myself, not having tested it, do not dare to assert: yet it will be permitted to those who wish to experiment; since he instructs that the bodies of bees, which, when a pestilence of this kind has attacked, are found killed in heaps under the combs, be stored in a dry place during the winter ^B and, when the mildness of the day around the vernal equinox suggests it, brought out into the sun after the third hour, and covered with fig ash." By which act he affirms that within two hours, with the vivid breath of heat, they are animated, and having resumed their spirit, if a prepared vessel is presented, they crawl into it.

Ibid. "They are fed by the air." Basil, homily 8; Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book IX, chapter 40, affirms that they are hungry especially from winter when they begin their work, and in book IV, *De partibus animalium*, chapter 6, he says that they are for this reason four-winged, and have a lighter corpulence, because they live on pastures, and have a necessity to wander for the sake of food, and in book IX, *De historia animalium*, chapter 40, he determines that they hunt nothing, but make food for themselves, and store it, and that their food is honey, of which thing they provide proof when apiarists begin to remove the combs; for although they are smoked, and struggle vehemently because of the smoke, yet they then yield more honey than before. For what they stored for themselves for the sake of food, they use more sparingly in other times. But they also have another food by which they are nourished, which some call "wax-bread," others "cerum," but this is worse, and in sweetness nearly that of figs: they collect this also like wax on their legs. And further down: "The most pleasing pasture for bees is thyme: but the white is preferred to the reddish." And book VII, chapter 41: "A single bee does not sit on foul things, ^C nor does it use any other food than sweet." Pliny, book XXI, chapter 44: "If food is desired by bees, grapes soaked, or boiled must, or honey-water *are to be placed at their doors*. Likewise raw meats of hens. In some summers these same foods must be provided, when continuous drought has taken away the sustenance of flowers." Columella has almost the same thing, book *d*, chapter 14, yet he differs from him, because he says not to include hens, but birds, their entrails removed, in the wintertime so that with their feathers they might offer warmth to the bees. "Then, even if their food supplies are exhausted, they are conveniently fed and starve not, and leave behind nothing but their bones. But if the combs remain sufficient and untouched, they do not offend them with their odor, however much they are lovers of cleanliness." But Aelian contends that they eat the meat of no animal, but that it is enough for them to feed on flowers, book V, *De historia animalium*, chapter 11, "nor at all," which Aristotle had also hinted before him, book IX, *De historia animalium*, chapter 40, "but as for flesh, none..." Who, therefore, in such a great abundance of food and affluence of juices would ever think that they are nourished by the air? Who would prepare their foods, who would care for their being fed, for whom food cannot be lacking, nor hunger torment them, since they always have open air by which they can be nourished?

Ibid., line 26. "They have a king." Basil, homily 8, and further down: "only these of the genus of all animals, as Horus is the author, book I, chapter 62, both have a king, and do not obey the king differently than the common people." And Didymus, in *Geoponica*, "And the polity..." Aristotle, book I, *De historia animalium*, chapter 1, asserts that even cranes act under a leader: "Civil in genus is man, the bee, the wasp, the ant, the crane. Of which some live under a leader, ^D as cranes, as bees; others are subject to no power, as the ant and almost innumerable other genera."

Ibid., line 28. "And no one readily." Aelian, *De historia animalium*, book V, chapters 10 and 11, and Aristotle, and Pliny, book XI, chapters 6 and 17, affirm that bees follow their own leader and emperor in all duties. Wonderous the obedience of the commonality around him. When he proceeds, the whole swarm is one, about...

^A which they gather, surrounding and protecting him, so that he is not seen. To which Aelian adds in the same place that they even fetch back a fugitive king and bring him back into the kingdom. Bees follow their king, [finding him] to be gentle and mild, and at the same time harmless, and when he leaves them, they pursue and track down their fugitive ruler. They track him down by an ineffable sense, and by the fragrance surrounding him they seize him and bring him back to his kingship, willing and desiring to be governed by his manner [of life]. As for how they migrate with the king, and by what sign, voice, or observance, [see] Aristotle, *History of Animals*, book IX, chapter 40, and Pliny, in the same place.

Ibid., line 29. "For these are such." For they do not choose by election, but by succession and lineage they preserve all the best ones, and by cherishing [them] they protect [them], while killing the wicked, as is evident from the authors mentioned above. Furthermore, Aristotle relates that in size, appearance, and the gentleness of his manners, he surpasses other bees (*De generatione animalium*, book III, chapter 10); Pliny, book XI, chapter 16, [says] several kings are started, ^B so that they do not fail. Later, when the brood from these begins to be adult, they kill the worst ones by unanimous vote, so that they do not distract the swarms. There are two types of them, the better one being reddish rather than black, and variegated. Their form is always remarkable, and they are twice as large as the others, with shorter wings, straight legs, and a loftier gait; on their forehead there is a kind of whitening spot like a diadem, and they differ from the common rabble by much brilliance. See Aelian, book V, chapters 10 and 11; *Geoponicon collect.*, and others.

Which are those flowers from which bees by collecting juices fashion their own honey, Aristotle enumerates in *De histor. animal.*, book V, chapter 22; Pliny, book XI, chapter 8, makes some exceptions to these, and reproves some who had made certain exceptions: They fashion wax from the flowers of all trees and cultivated plants, except for dock and goosefoot, which are these types of herbs. Broom is also falsely excepted, since in Spain many honeys in the broom-fields taste of that herb. I judge olives to be falsely excepted, since it is certain that with the yield of the olive many lifeless things are produced. They are not harmed by any fruits; they do not settle on dead [plants], not even on the flowers, let alone the bodies. But Pliny, in a few things, seems worthy of notice. We spoke earlier about olives; regarding dead bodies, he is not even consistent with himself; he has admonished us in other places that dead chickens are food for bees. But in such a variety of things and diversity of opinions, who can be so consistent with himself in memory that it does not happen that he sometimes slips?

Ibid., line 34. "And that which is dewy." Aristotle, in the same place, describes all these things most accurately: They build combs from flowers, they fashion wax from the tear of trees, and they draw honey from the dew of the air, mostly at the rising of the stars, and from the settling of the rainbow. Honey is not made at all before the rising of the Pleiades. Thus, as has been said, they make the combs from flowers. But that bees do not themselves make the honey, but bring down the shining dew, is proven by the fact that apiarists find the cells full of honey in one or two days. And in book IX, chapter 40, he noted the custom of bees, namely, not to seek many kinds of flowers in one and the same excursion, but on each [flight] a single [species]; for example, they fly from violet to violet, and touch nothing else until they return to their hive, here they shake themselves; and they follow single [tasks] for three or four. But it is not easy to see what they receive; nor has it been seen yet how they work [it].

Ibid., line 32. "For there is a sting." Aristotle has the same [observation] in *De histor. animal.*, chapter 21; bees possess a sting, drones lack it, [the] kings and leaders have one, but do not use it; wherefore some think they lack a sting. Aelian (*De histor. animal.*, book I, chapter 60) [says] — which points are rendered not integrally but mutilatingly by the interpreter; Pliny (book XI, chapter 17) hesitates, and determines nothing certain. Now let someone ask whether there was one Hercules, and [what of] the tomb of Father Liber, and the rest [of things] buried by the neglect of antiquity. Behold, in a small and trivial thing annexed to our own [concerns], of which there is constant abundance, it is not agreed among authors: whether the king alone has no sting, armed only with majesty, or whether nature gave it to him, but denied him the use of it. This is certain, that the emperor does not use a sting. Seneca denies it (book I, *De clementia*, chapter 19); [he says] bees are most irascible, and most pugnacious for the size of their body, and they leave their stings in [the] wound: the King himself is without a sting. Consult Brodeus, book IV, chapter 10.

Ibid., line 33. "They gather from..." Basilius, hom.: ^C ... [regarding] which [it is said] it is liquid. Originally, for it becomes like water, and for some days it is liquid; so even if it should be taken away in those very days, it does not have thickness, and it is perfected in about twenty [days]. It is evident immediately from the juice, especially. Which Pliny renders (book XI, chapter 13): Now honey is at the beginning, like water, diluted, and in the first days it ferments, like must, and purges itself: on the twentieth day it thickens; soon it is covered with a thin membrane, which is composed of the foam of the fermentation itself. ^D Ibid., line 59. Concerning this wondrous artifice of bees in building combs, consult Basil, hom. 8; Aristotle, book IX, chapter 40, and Aelian, *De histor. animal.*, book V, chapter 13, who follow this industry in most elegant words.

Ibid., line 45. "But the locusts..." Basilius, hom. 8: How to you the terrible invasions of the locust

locusts ^A are to be described, or how the whole swarm, having risen up by a single signal and camped across the breadth of the land, does not touch the fruits before the divine command is granted to it? How does the *seleucis* [thrush] follow as a remedy for the plague, possessing an insatiable power of eating, because the philanthropic God fashioned its nature as insatiable for the benefit of humans? [Scripture] called it a bird, and insatiable, and crafty. And the *seleucis* is such a destructive bird to the locusts, that even those left in its shadow are destroyed. And indeed, its sight is strong by night, but is dimmed when the sun shines. How is the bat four-footed and winged at the same time? How alone among birds does it use teeth, and bring forth live young like four-footed animals, while it hovers in the air not lightened by a feather, but by a certain leathery membrane? How, moreover, does this also have something social in its nature? For just like a chain, the bats hold onto one another, and hang one from another: which is not easy to be accomplished among us humans. And: As when bats in the corner of a wondrous cave, ^B squeaking, fly, and if one falls out of the chain from the rock, they hold onto one another. Four-footed. For this alone of other winged creatures has teeth and breasts. And what is beyond reason are those things which Democritus refers to in the *Geoponics*, book XIII, and [are used] to hinder them already rushing [in], or, if they have crept in, to consume them; for they are both consistent with the nature of things and proven by many experiments. Concerning which, more opportunely elsewhere.

Ibid., line 52. "The owl, they say." Basilius, hom. [8]: Therefore, it wanders at night, as Aristotle reports in *Historia animalium*, book I, chapter 1, and book IX, chapter 34, saying that owls [and other creatures] which they cannot see by day, acquire food for themselves by hunting at night. But [they say] it does not do this the whole night, but in the evening and morning. In Photius, in the *Bibliotheca*, Antonius Diogenes in his books of *Incredible Things* mentions a city on the island of Thule, whose inhabitants see indeed by night, but are blind by day.

Ibid., p. 54. "But the bats." Basilius, hom. [8]: ...before these, Homer, in the last book of the *Odyssey*: [The lines follow in Greek].

Ibid., line 56. "But alone of the winged creatures." Varro, apud Nonium, used to say that it is neither a mouse nor a bird: The bat is a two-formed winged animal (others say "dis-formed") because it goes forth into the flight of night in the evening. Varro, Agathone: What more? I have become a bat, and am neither Plainly among the mice, nor among the birds. And Angelus Politianus in a certain epistle: "While we are neither plainly mice nor birds, yet we attempt to please both," the cause of this hesitation is explained best by Aristotle, book *De partibus animalium*, chapter 13, which consult.

Ibid., line 57. "Four-footed." Perhaps to indicate the same thing that Basilius indicates in the passage above with the term *tetrapoun* [four-footed]. Which is the same as saying "walking," and responds, conversely, to "winged." Horus, book II, chapter 33, says that among all winged creatures, the bat alone has teeth and breasts. And Plinius, book XI, [chapter 37] and 39: Among winged creatures none have teeth except the bat; and book X, c. 61: The bat alone among winged animals brings forth live young, to which there is a membranous wing. The same one alone of winged animals nourishes with milk, applying breasts, and flies about embracing twin infants: and it carries them with it. One hip bone is assigned to the same, and gnats are most welcome in its food. Isidorus, book XII, chapter 7, has summarized all these things thus: The bat received its name from the time, because, fleeing the light, it flies around in the evening twilight, driven by a headlong motion, and...

^A suspended by the very thinnest members of its arms (for thus I correct it) are, nor are they anywhere else. This, which is similar to mice, not so much resounding in voice as in stridor, and in species both winged and a quadruped, which is not accustomed to be found in other birds. Since it has arms and feet, what wonder if it is *tetraskeles* (four-legged) for our author? Although Pliny affirms that only one shank is handed down to it. However, it is known that it lacks joints of the knees, ankles, and feet. Ibid., line 59. *Oi de tettiges*. Basil, homily 8, "What is the mode of the melody of the cicada? How in the midday are they more songful due to the drawing in of the air, which they produce in the expansion of the thorax by the emission of the sound." Aristotle, *De histor. animal.*, chapter 50, "Great abundance of rain follows." Ibid. *Hesychasousi de kairon*. Aristotle, book VIII, *De histor. anim.*, chapter 17: "Cicadae, when they have emerged, settle on olive trees or reeds; and, when they come forth with the cover broken, they leave behind a small amount of liquid in it, and not much later they fly and begin to sing." Col. 737, line 1. *Plattein de kai adein*. Aristotle explains the reason why cicadas sing, in his book *De juvent. et senect. vita et mort. et respir.*, chapter 11. For they seem by this reason, namely the expansion of the membranes, to breathe and to be cooled in a certain way; and in book IV of *De histor. animal.*, chapter 9, he declares the manner of this sound. For he says that those membranes are moved by an interior spirit, not an exterior one, and that the sound is produced by the friction of that spirit. "Insects therefore neither produce voice nor converse, but make a sound with the inner spirit, not with an outward one. For none of them breathe, but some are said to buzz, like the bee and their winged ones, while others are said to sing, like the cicadas. And all these make a sound with the membrane under the body in as much as it is divided, such as the race of cicadas, by the friction of the spirit." And therefore for this reason it is necessary, in order that they may sing, that they be divided by a belt, and have a dissection beneath a transverse septum, whether they be larger or smaller, for in those not divided, and in which there is no cut, they are entirely mute. Horus wrote that they resonate through the back, book II, chapter 55, "For this one does not speak through its mouth, but singing through the back it sings a beautiful song." And Aelian, *De histor. animal.*, book I, chapter 20: "The others of the Indian birds have a good mouth, and speak with the tongue after the manner of men; but the cicadas are most gabbling at the loins." And ^B before Aelian, Aristotle, *De histor. animal.*, book IV, chapter 7: "The cicada among these, and in the whole genus of animals, lacks a mouth: it possesses something long, compact, and undivided, similar to that which refers to the species of tongue; in those in which there is a sting in the mouth: and by that very thing it draws dew, a single and peculiar nourishment." Concerning the silence of the Rheginoi cicadas, Strabo has much in *Geography*, book VI; Solinus, chapter 8, agrees on the silence, but dissents as to the cause. And he rejects these derived from Granius on fables and the ravings of poets; nor is he truthful in all things which he narrates there, for he says: The cicada at Rhegium is mute, nor is it so anywhere else. And Isidorus, following him, book XII, chapter 8: "Cicadas are born from the spit of cuckoos. These, in Italy at Rhegium, are mute" (for thus I correct it) are, nor are they anywhere else. Which anyone might refute by the sole testimony of Aelian: for he, in book III of *De histor. anim.*, chapter 35, says that in Macedonia there are pigs, and a certain genus of cicada that is mute; and by the reason brought forward from Strabo, that could be proved with an easy task, since that cause holds its force not only in the Rheginoi, but also in others besides. Nay, Theophylactus Simocatus, *Quaest. natur.* 13, affirms that all female cicadas are mute, and he wishes their coldness to be the cause: "The female cicada is by much colder than the male, and nature commands silence to it, imposing an intensity of coldness. Wherefore a chattering cicada is not female." Which he also records regarding the Seriphian frogs, which are mute, *Quaest.* 18. Ibid., line 7. *Aper koine men*. It was the opinion of all that man is divided into two parts, body and soul, and has in this something common with God, in that with brutes and beasts. And just as in soul he far excels other living creatures, animals (excelling) trees and shrubs and the rest that lack sense, man (excelling) from the soul by reason, they from the body by sense: yet so that even to man, as one partaker of a body, sense is not denied. But there is this difference between man and beast, that if a beast is moved, it is moved by sense only, and is carried to the present, and feels nothing beyond pleasure, and is snatched away to it with full impulse; while man, since he is a partaker of reason, even while he senses, although he is led by sense, yet elevates himself to consider higher things and to understand divine ones, and accommodates all things not by acts of sense, but by reason, for his own proper use. Wherefore he also sees the causes of things and their consequences, and is not ignorant of their progress. However, the sense of both is carried to the same objects and in equal reason it is manifest that they are moved by them, whatever Jamblichus may say. Nor would I deny that in some things beasts are surpassed by men, and in others men by beasts, which is the common opinion, and more accommodated to Aristotelian doctrine. But these are of another business. Let it be enough that it is established that man, by the soul—that is, by being possessed of reason—is more excellent than other living creatures, and by that alone is distinguished from them. Wherefore I often reflect with myself on those truly golden words of Sallust in the preface to *The Conspiracy of Catiline*, which, as it were, ^C can bring light to our author: "All men ^D who strive to excel other living creatures, it behooves them to strive with the greatest effort, lest they pass their lives in silence like cattle, which nature has fashioned prone and obedient to the belly, but all our power is situated in the soul and body. We use the command of the soul more, and the service of the body. The former is common to us with the gods, the latter with the beasts. Wherefore it seems to me more righteous to seek glory by the resources of the intellect than by those of strength: and since life itself, which we enjoy, is short, to make the memory of us as long as possible. For the glory of riches and beauty is fleeting and fragile: virtue is held to be illustrious and eternal." Learn, O man, imbued with Christian discipline, from a pagan man, to use your soul and your reason, as justice and divine law require; what majesty

^A you have, lest you defile it most filthily with the vilest movements of living creatures. You are a man destined for higher things; do not despise that which shines forth in you of the Divinity.

Ibid., line 9. Many things could be brought forward here concerning the reason for the movement of animals, what faculty is required, and what finally concurs to execute this movement; but I leave these to more subtle philosophers. I shall, however, bring forward one or two for the explanation of this passage. For our Eustathius, when in the preceding words he seemed, I know not how, to have denied a soul to brute beasts and to have attributed to them only sensation, explains himself in these passages regarding which "soul" he was speaking. He says, namely, that these animals, which possess sensation in common with men, do not however possess an equally perfect soul, and do not live and move by the motion by which men are moved; for in that case, they would partake of an equal soul. Since man is not understood to be moved except by reason and a first end proposed by the intellect through discourse—a thing which does not at all befit other animals: for they are moved only by appetite and imagination. This our author intimates to us while he says: "These animals, less perfect than man, are led by a certain force of nature, with blood and air impelling them." Concerning the cause of the movement of animals, ^B Aristotle, *De anima*, lib. III, text 48 and following. He refutes, therefore, through these words the opinion of those who attributed the power of reason and discourse to brutes. Porphyry, *De abstinentia ab esu carnium*, lib. III, posits that nature has bestowed upon all animals to which it has given sensation and memory, reason also, nay, even speech, both internal and external, and he attempts to show this by many arguments and by the testimonies of Empedocles, Plato, and even Aristotle. Plutarch, in *De placitis*, lib. V, cap. 20, testifies that Anaxagoras and Pythagoras felt the same, whom he himself supports in the Dialogue he titled, *That Brutes Possess Reason*. What could be more absurd? What more foolish? Philosophers among the Greeks refute this opinion with many arguments, which you may consult if you wish. Let it suffice for us to at least make mention of this matter.

Ibid., line 11. "And it is also in them." Most beautiful, indeed, is this digression in which, from all the things created by God in this world, he confirms with most valid reasons the eternal providence of the same God in these inferior things; and those things which others have treated in long and disjointed structures of words, though piously, he explains succinctly and briefly with a certain compendious enumeration of arguments and demonstrations. Theodoret treated this argument most elegantly in ten discourses. Wherefore, it seems superfluous to me to insert here the testimonies of others to prove this opinion of our author. I shall, however, add here, by way of a corollary, the words of Lactantius Firmianus, *De falsa religione*, cap. 2: "For there is no one so rude, of such savage habits, that he does not, lifting his eyes to heaven, although he may not know by whose providence this whole visible universe is ruled, yet understand that it exists through the magnitude, motion, disposition, ^C constancy, utility, beauty, and temperance of things, and that it cannot be but that that which consists in such wonderful reason is governed by some greater counsel."

Ibid., line 28. "Yet Reason shall say." Methodius of Patara pursues this reasoning profusely and most discursively in his book *On Free Will*, against the Valentinians, whom see; and Cicero, *De natura deorum*. That Aristotle denied this is reported by Atticus in Eusebius.

Ibid., line 40. "For it tends toward something." Aristotle, or someone else, in *On the World* to Alexander, by the example of the soul—which is not seen in man, and yet it is necessary to confess that all things done by man proceed from it—proves God, or rather that we can arrive at the knowledge of God from His works, who, even if He escapes the edge of our sight, yet becomes transparent and manifest through His very works: and this in no way hinders either Him in acting or us in accommodating our faith to these matters. "For the soul, by which we live and have cities and houses, being invisible, is seen through its works themselves. For all the arrangement of our life is discovered, ordered, and held together by it." And further: "We must think about God also, being by power the most strong, by beauty the most comely, by life the most immortal, and by virtue the best. Therefore, though He becomes invisible to every mortal nature, He is seen from the works themselves. For the sufferings, and all things through the air, and those upon the earth, and those in the water, might truly be said to be the works of God, of Him who holds the world, from whom, according to the natural philosopher Empedocles, 'All that was, all that is, and all that shall be [thereafter, trees have blossomed, and men and women, beasts and birds, and the water-nourished fish.']" ^D

Ibid., line 47. "And the spirit is co-born." Basil, *Homily 9*. Similar things are read in Elias the Cretan Bishop, and in Glycas, *Annal.*, lib. 1. *Thumos* in Greek is a word of many meanings, and therefore subject to various interpretations, especially in this matter of which we are treating, for all of them seem able to be adapted to the lion. Therefore some [interpret it as] fury, others as soul, anger, rage, and some also as a generous spirit. I have preferred to combine irascibility with generosity, in order to explain more clearly the force of the Greek word and the nature of the lion. Horus, lib. II, cap. 17: "They paint a lion wishing to signify *thumos*." But it is difficult to explain the most potent cause of [this] generosity. Martial, lib. XII, epigram concerning Ligurra: [alt-version omitted]

In Libyian bulls the lions rush, Nor are they troubled by butterflies.

Matthæus Rader, whom I have always admired for his erudition, doctrine, and elegance, and with whom I was most familiar in Munich, while I was arranging the transport to Rome of the Palatine Library of Heidelberg—which had been made spoil and sent as a trophy to Gregory XV by Maximilian, Duke of both Bavarias (whose exceptional praises and virtues, piety toward God, ardent spirit for the Catholic religion, liberality toward subordinates, generosity to others, and austerity toward himself I here pass over in silence, leaving this weight and labor to others)—which at length, by the gift of God, and by the glory, help, and benefits of such a prince, I transported sound and intact, I say, Rader ^B says in the same place: The lion does not rage against small creatures and lesser beasts, fawns, hares, rabbits, much less butterflies, but against bulls and huge beasts; of which disposition and nature, dogs sent to Alexander of Macedon are recorded to have been, according to Pliny, lib. VIII, cap. 40, etc. Aelian, however, reports that they decline from this nobility to such a degree that, when tamed by hunters, they become accustomed to hunting fawns, boars, deer, and others, lib. XVII, cap. 26; and Rader himself cited this passage of Aelian in his Commentaries on Martial, lib. I, epig. 9. And Marcus Paulus Venetus, lib. *De moribus et consuetudinibus Orientum regionum et Tartarorum*, speaking of the Great Khan, writes: "The king has for his hunting recreation many tame leopards, which are accustomed to hunting with men, and for this hunting they are excellent and capture many beasts. Similarly, he has lynxes industrious at hunting. He also has lions, very large and most beautiful, greater than those which are in Babylon, which have claws in the hair of their skins, of varied color, black and red. These also are trained to hunt with men and to capture boars, bears, deer, goats, onagers, and wild oxen with the hunters. When the king's hunters wish to take lions with them for hunting, they carry two of them in a cage, and each of them has many tame eagles as companions, which are so fierce that they capture hares, goats, does, and foxes; among which there are many of such audacity that they leap upon wild boars with a great attack, and wolves cannot defend themselves from them until they are captured." The same Aelian, lib. IV, cap. 23, seems to refer the cause of the lions' nobility to another source: that the lion and lioness do not go to hunting and drinking together, but separately, because each, trusting in their own strength, does not desire the help of the other.

^A Both relying on bodily strength, the one does not need the other, as the elders say. Nor food from yesterday. But when sated to the full, he desires to store it up, and yet afterwards shame prevents him from guarding it while remaining, fearing the hunger that comes from lack of food. For, breathing out his breath and keeping watch with this, he nonetheless departs himself. But other animals coming near, and sensing where the scrap is lying, do not dare to touch it, but go away fearing to be thought to pillage, and to cut off something of their own king. But this one, if there is abundance of another and fine weather, he forgets the first one, and having disdained it as stale, departs; but if not, he comes to it as to his own treasure.

^B Ibid., lin. 49. Aelian, *De hist. animal.*, lib. V, cap. 39, narrates the cause and mode of this matter, and does not wish it to be true in all things. Phile in his iambics has the same, but how he eats flesh and uses immoderate food, and endures starvation, Aristotle writes in *De historia animalium*, lib. VIII, cap. 5.

^C Ibid., lin. 30. He has sharp sense. For I hear they are also terrible at tracking. The tracks with the tail. But when a lion walks he does not go directly, nor does he allow his own tracks and impressions to be simple, but he goes now forward, now returns, and again holds to the forward direction, and indeed he also goes backward. Then he proceeds on the path, and hides from the hunters the way to go along the track, and inhabits with the cubs until he finds them.

^D Ibid., lin. 52. Aelian, *De histor. animal.*, lib. IX, cap. 30. But when a lion walks he does not go directly... And Peter Damianus, lib. II, epist. 18, when the lion is sought by hunters, having immediately perceived their scent, in order to elude the tracking of those who are pursuing him, he constructs a novelty of wily deceit. For, dragging his tail along the ground, he covers his own footprints while he walks, and thus escapes the hunters' snares so as not to be captured.

Ibid., lin. 54. Democritus used to say that a lion is born with open eyes, as if immediately from birth he is irascible. Aelian, lib. V, cap. 39: Democritus says that of all living things, only the lion is born with eyes fallen out, already in a certain way angered, and from birth desires something manic. And the cubs, newly born...

^A are also blind," and Phile, in iambs: "But after two months the offspring come forth, Like to blind whelps, and moderately, Seek the white and flowing milk."

And it would be deemed truly ridiculous if anyone, in defense of Democritus, were to say that he did not assert that lion cubs were not blind because he said they were born with eyes open. For we see certain animals which, although they have open eyes, nevertheless do not see, like a hare when it sleeps, and we shall also speak below of the lion. By the same reasoning, therefore, we could say that lions, when they are born, although they have eyes that are open and gaping, are blind and do not see. For Aristotle, to whom in this as in other matters greater credence is due, in *De Generatione Animalium*, c. 4, says near the middle: "Of quadrupeds that are multifid, like the dog, lion, wolf, fox, lynx, all bring forth their young blind, and their eyelids open later." And book IV, c. 6: "For some of them bring forth cubs that are almost unarticulated, like foxes, bears, lions, and some others, but almost all are blind, like those I just mentioned and also the dog, the wolf, and the lynx." And among these he excepts only the sow, which alone brings forth perfect young. From which it is clear that the lioness brings forth her young with eyes closed. That response in defense of Democritus, therefore, will be vain and futile. Plutarch also followed the opinion of Democritus.

Ibid., line 55. *And three days.* Epiphanius in *Physiologus*, c. 2: "When the lioness brings forth her cub, happening to be breathless and blind, she sits watching over it for three days. But after the three days have been fulfilled, the male lion approaches, and breathing upon it, it immediately sees and lives." The place in the *Physiologus* is praised by Origen, hom. 17 on Gen. XLIX: "*Physiologus* writes these things about the lion cub: that when it is born, it sleeps for three days and three nights. Then, finally, it awakens the sleeping cub by the groan or roar of the father, as if the place of the lair were struck with terror." Isidore transcribed the same sentiment from Origen. And Rufinus, in *De benedictionibus patriarcharum*, relates that it is handed down by the physiologists that this is the nature of the lion cub: to sleep for three days when born, but on the third day to be awakened by the roar of the father, the lair having been shaken.

Col. 740, line 1. *When to man.* Lucan, book II, "Soon, when it has stirred itself with the lashes of its cruel tail." ^B Aelian, book VI, c. 1: "Moreover, the lion also rouses himself, whipping himself with his tail, not allowing himself to be sluggish or to loiter. And the poet, knowing this, sings of the lion." And book XII, c. 14. Pliny, book VIII, c. 16: "The tail is the index of the lion's spirit, just as are their ears. For nature bestows these signs upon even the most noble. With the tail unmoved, therefore, he is peaceful, mild, and gentle, which is a rare thing; for his anger is more frequent, and at the beginning, the earth is beaten, but in the increase [of anger], the back [is struck], as if lashed by a certain incitement." Theocritus, *Idyll* 23, "And he lashed his tail against his flanks, and immediately he remembered battle." Consult Caelius Rhodiginus, book [923] 9, chapter 8. Nicolaus Leonicenus, in his *Natural Questions*, gives two reasons for this property. Why do angry lions lash their backs with their tails? Is it because the tail is the index of the lion's spirit? And the rest of Pliny's words. Or is it that anger is said to arise from heat kindled around the heart? For it is in the nature of heat to move all things, and those things more and more frequently which happen to be more mobile, such as, indeed, the tail is in all animals. Hence the tail is called *alkaiē*, because it excites itself to fortitude. The interpreter of Apollonius, book IV: "*Alkaiē* is properly called the tail of the lion, from which it is turned to *alkē* [strength]."

Ibid., line 7. *And having grown old, and to.* Origen, *catena* in Jeremiah, c. V, v. 6: "The lion, as the story goes, having grown old, haunts the outskirts of cities, wishing to hunt men." Aelian, *De historia animalium*, book V, c. 34: "Being in the grip of old age, it comes under the animal sheds, and to the huts, and to the dwellings of the shepherds that are in caves. For it is unable to trust in mountain hunts any longer." Which Phile expressed in iambs: "But when he grows old, and has need of food, Since he does not have the boldness to hunt, He haunts the fields and the stalls of herdsmen." And the first of these is Aristotle, book IX, c. 44: "They approach cities and inflict harm upon men, mostly in the time of their senescence; for then, through bodily weakness and the decay of their teeth, they are unable to hunt."

Ibid., line 8. *And its mouth is.* Chrysostom, in c. VI of Job: "For this beast is excessively foul-smelling. For since he has greed by nature, God made him otherwise more vile than others." Aristotle and others have more to say about his foul smell.

Ibid., line 9. *And sleeping, his.* Horus, book I, c. 19: "Since the lion, when awake, has closed eyes, but when sleeping has them open." Plutarch, *Symposiacs* IV, quest. 5, says that the eyes of a sleeping lion shine, but that he sleeps for a moment of time. Phile, in iambs, says that he moves even his tail itself in rest. See Aelian regarding this, book V, c. 39, Pliny, and others. Regarding their sleep, Oppian sang thus in *Cynegetica* 3: "Neither does he have sleep in the innermost recesses of the rock, But he sleeps with eyes open, rolling his bold spirit, And he sleeps where he finds the overwhelming evening night."

Ibid. *And the lioness with difficulty one.* Basilius thought so, hom. 9: "Whence the lioness is with difficulty the mother of one lion. For by the sharpness of her claws she tears the womb, and thus comes forth, as they say." Aesop seems to be of this opinion in his fables; for there the lioness answers the fox, who boasts that she brings forth many young, that she brings forth only one, but it is a lion. Herodotus, book III: "And the lioness, being the strongest and bravest, brings forth once in her life. For in bringing forth, she casts out the womb with the young." And the Egyptians, as is in Horus, [say that] a woman who only once...

brings forth, they depict a lioness. For she does not bear a womb twice. Homer feels otherwise:

And in another place: "Groaning heavily, as a lioness with a mane At the time when a fawn-hunting man snatches Under the thicket the cubs from the forest."

And Aristotle, *De histor. animal.*, book VI, ch. 31, says it is a delirious fable that a lioness emits her womb during birth, and that it is made up because it is a rare genus of animal, and the author of the fable was unable to discover the reason why it should be so. And he reports that a lioness at the first birth brings forth five cubs, and for each following year one less as she becomes sterile. And in book III, *De gener. anim.*, ch. 1, he reports this same thing, and adds the cause; for birds and plants also have "hyperine," that is, exhaustion; which vice is an excessive secretion of excrement, so that they are called exhausted and barren, which are so affected. This same affection is also the cause for a lioness, so that she becomes sterile. For at first she brings forth five or six cubs, then in the second year four, soon three, then in the same manner for each year one less, and finally none, when all the excrement has been consumed and, with age ending, the seed has failed together with it. This is followed by Pliny, book VIII, ch. 16; Aelian, book IV, ch. 34; Phile, in the Iambics. Oppianus, *Cynegetica* 3, v. 57:

"Five times she loosed her girdle of offspring, Baxis truly is aimless, that she bears but one; Five she carries first; but afterwards four She labors bringing forth cubs, and in order beneath From the third belly three came forth; and from the fourth Twin-born children. At last the mother bore one, The glorious king-lion of the noble-womb."

Plutarch in the *Political Precepts* reports that a man had a lion in camp to carry his gear, and because he was compelled to flee, the fact that he aspired to tyranny was an argument for this. And Aelian, book V, ch. 39, writes the same of this, and of another lion of Beronicius, and in book XII, ch. 23, that there is a temple of Adonis in the region of Elymaea, and gentle lions in it, who would receive men entering the temple with fawning. If you were to call them to food, they would attend like invited guests, and whatever you offered, after they had received it, they would depart modestly and decently; and in book XVII, ch. 26, speaking of Indian lions, he says they become so accustomed that they even provide their aid to hunters in hunting other wild beasts, a passage we cited above. I will add this item. Just as Aristotle, in the cited passage, refutes the opinion of those regarding the single birth of a lioness, so also in book VI, *Hist. anim.*, he refutes the opinion of those who thought a she-wolf gives birth only once in her life, and that on the twelfth day of the year. Likewise, what ^B we wrote above from Herodotus and others concerning the "monotokia" (single-birth) of lionesses, Isidore reports in book XII, ch. 2.

In Philostratus, a huge lioness is found to carry eight cubs in her womb. The same author writes that the lioness carries in the womb for six months, and gives birth three times, first three, then two, and finally one. Here I shall add something not unworthy of observation. Philostratus reports the lioness carries in the womb for six months, Aelian for two. Aristotle, *De gener. anim.*, book V, ch. 6, places the lion among those of one color, and he calls "of one color" those whose whole genus has one color, just as lions are always tawny. Pliny, book VIII, ch. 17, writes that only the lion in Syria is black. Oppianus, book III, in this same genus says some are tawny, some black, which he calls "melanochrous," as are the Ethiopian ones, and Aelian affirms the Indians are of a black color, book XVII, ch. 26. Aristotle, *Problem.* sect. 10, no. 44, writes that lions can never be domesticated, and proves this with many reasons and arguments. However, we have it from Pliny that this has happened differently in practice; for he himself, in book VIII, ch. 16, narrates that the first of men to dare to handle a lion with his hand and show it domesticated was condemned on that argument, because a man of such artful genius seemed capable of persuading anyone of anything. And it was wrongly believed that liberty was granted to him to whom even wildness had yielded so much. And ^C Isidore, line 13. [On the panther:] Basil, hom. 9, "The panther is violent." Quidam pardalem, pardum et pantheram unum et idem esse opinati sunt. Alii distinxerunt, ita ut inter pantheras pardus sit mas, pardalis femina. Nos tamen pardalim sive pardum, a panthera maxime differre una cum nostro Eustathio existimamus, qui harum, veluti duorum specie distinctorum mentionem facit. Habent enim et formam diversam, et colores et multa alia, in quibus, si idem essent, non differrent. Pardalim Oppianus in duo genera distinxit, et depinxit, *Cynegetica* lib. III, quem consule: nos etiam infra nonnulla dicemus. ^D Ibid., line 14. Oppianus, in the said book:

"It runs most swiftly, and charges straight and brave; You would say, whenever you see it, that it is borne through the air."

Ibid., line 16. Basil, hom. 9, "The nature of the bear is sluggish." The nature of the bear is sluggish,

The nature of the bear

^A *Ibid.*, line 17. "Frequently, then, deeply..." Basil, Hom. 9: "The bear, when often wounded by deep blows, heals itself by all sorts of devices, applying the *phlomos* (mullein)—a plant which has a dry nature—to the scars." Petrus Damianus, *Epist.* 11, 18: "If a bear is ever struck by blows of the most grievous slaughter, or even pierced by darts, it applies to the wounds an herb which in Greek is called *phlomos*; and thus, by touch alone, it removes all pain from the ulcers and recovers to its former state of safety."

^B *Ibid.*, line 22. "The bull by its horns." Pliny, *Hist. Nat.*, lib. 8, cap. 45: "Generosity in the appearance of bulls, with a grim forehead, shaggy ears, and horns in readiness to demand a fight. But the whole threat stands in the forefeet, as its anger grows, repeatedly recoiling and scattering sand into the air, and it alone among animals grows hot with that stimulus."

*Ibid.*, line 27. "But when the boar sees." Aelian, *De nat. anim.*, lib. 5, cap. 45: "They say the wild boar does not make for anyone before it has whetted its tusks. Homer also bears witness to this, saying: 'Having whetted its white tooth within the curved jaws.' The boar, then, intending to go into battle, whets its teeth against smooth stones. That Homer is a witness to this for the animal is clear." ^C *Cynegetica*: "There is a story about the boar, that it keeps its white tooth hidden within, a fierce and fiery reproach. A sign for mortals is firmly fixed, for when a great, dense crowd of hunters, with brave dogs, hunt the beast upon the earth, having subdued it closer with long spears, then if someone, having lifted it, should touch a thin hair of the still-panting beast to the tooth, it immediately curls up into a ball, appearing to burn; and even to the dogs themselves, on the flanks on either side, where the boar's burning teeth have approached, the tracks are stretched out, scorched through the hide."

"And there is an animal, the *anthalopus*." The *ouros* (urus) is a very large animal, far exceeding others, similar to an ox, having two horns in itself like a saw. It is fierce in its aspect beyond all animals, such that it is able to saw through large trees with its horns and cut off branches, and is unable to have any other animals under its power. The same *ouros* feeds near the ocean and immediately becomes intoxicated and struggles against the earth with its horns like an ox. There is there a tree called *tanus*, having the shape of a branch of the white-mullein, and the same *ouros*, by its branches, is bound; its horn is caught by it. When the hunter approaches, therefore, and finds it entangled by its horns... ^D *Ibid.*, line 39. "There is also among the Scythians." Concerning the tarandus and its figure and form, and how it assumes the colors of the things it touches: Phile in iambics, Aelian, *De hist. anim.*, lib. 2, cap. 16, and Pliny, lib. 8, cap. 54.

^A Aristotle, *De mirabilibus auscultationibus*; Theophrastus, fragment *On those things that change their colors*. The tarandus is in size equal to an ox, but its face is like that of a stag, though broader, as if it were composed of two stag faces. It is cloven-hoofed and horned. Its horn has branches, just as a stag’s does, and it is hairy all over; for around the bone there is a tension of the skin, from which comes its growth. The skin is ringed in thickness and very strong. For this reason, those who skin it have difficulty getting the hide off. The animal is rare and seldom seen. Its change is wonderful and borders on the incredible. For in other animals the change takes place in the skin, with the inner moisture—whether blood-like or of some other such kind—being altered, so that the sympathy is manifest; but the change of the hairs, since they are dry and detached and not of a nature to be altered all at once, is truly paradoxical and highly incredible in that it colors itself in many different ways.

As an addition, regarding the polypus and the chameleon: The polypus seems to cause its changes through its spirit. For it is by nature pneumatic. A sign of this is the size of its spirit (or of its lungs), for it is stretched out almost through the whole body. At the same time, it is manifest that it is both puffed up and inflated. ^B Indeed, while in other animals the change occurs in the skin, with the inner moisture being altered, whether blood-like or of some other such kind, so that the sympathy is manifest; the change of the hairs, since they are dry and detached, and not of a nature to be altered all at once, is truly paradoxical, and highly incredible in that it colors itself in many different ways. ^C It does not resist; it is a more sluggish and harder material, capable of changing the visible appearance and color, although one can see the tiny body of the chameleon varying with the easiest conversion to the colors it sees. Others say that the polypus and the chameleon, and other animals of similar nature and disposition, render those colors not because they are truly imbued with them, but because, since they have a rare and permeable body, the colors of the things lying beneath are perceived through it as if through glass, which, however, to the deceived gaze, seem to reside within the animals themselves, just as glass placed upon colored objects seems to be painted with the colors that shine through it.

Aristotle, in *De historia animalium*, lib. II, and lib. XI, says that the chameleon changes color when it is inflated; ^D which Theophrastus also said about the polypus in the aforementioned passage, as Henri Estienne reads it, which I also consider the better reading, for what Theophrastus reports fits the polypus rather than the chameleon, although the same Estienne suspects in a manuscript of better quality that it had been written *chameleon*. With that deleted, in its place *polypus* was substituted; for certain traces of erasures seemed to remain in it. Theophrastus therefore says (others say Aristotle, *De partibus animalium*, lib. IV, cap. 5, reports the same): What is certain to be determined in this matter, it would be difficult for anyone to devise, or to establish as certain whatever has been said, based solely on the authority of such great men, even if there were no reasoning for it. That we may not seem, then, to impugn such great men or their opinions—far be this from me—I have always valued highly, and have always admired, the genius of great men; let us all say that they have narrated the truth in this matter, and let us conclude that the most certain causes, therefore, for the polypus and the chameleon, are the flow of atoms—that is, of spirits, which every thing carries before it—due to fear, or ruse, or any other movement of nature, impressed upon the sense through the imagination, in a body that is, as it were, airy, and translucent, and permeable, and therefore most apt for receiving any change, that they admit all colors. There remain not suddenly many further difficulties and doubts, but such as can be explained with the easiest task, or by this one conclusion of ours, which, that we may not be too prolix, we omit; but one might say this well enough regarding the chameleon and the polypus: what of the tarandus, with a thicker body, and what is wonderful, but more wonderful still, with its shaggy hair? I shall say what Theophrastus says in the aforementioned place. Why not? I do not fear to admit that God is able to perform something whose causes I do not attain.

^A Likewise also the chameleon. It is neither to be seen nor to be recognized, for it steals itself away while at the same time deceiving and distorting the sight of those who look at it. For if you happen to see its form in black, it has already transformed its appearance into a greenish hue, just as if it had changed its garments. Then, however, it appears different, having slipped into whiteness, just as if it were a different mask, or an actor having donned another costume. It is now pale, and then red. By the composition of its body, it becomes variegated; this chameleon, just as it ^B wanders in the heat and in the desert—the chameleon is an animal that changes its body into many colors, and it appears the same as the thing adjacent and lying near it, whether it be wood, or stone, or whatever such thing it might be. For it adjusts its own color to that of the other. The same thing happens also regarding the chameleon; for it changes its color in the same way to every place, even to the trunks of trees, and to the leaves, and to the earth. The chameleon changes into all colors, save that it does not accept a change into white and red. And it does not change only in relation to its adjacent colors, but also by itself, if one merely touches it, it changes its color.

O chameleon, most noble one, you change your hue. For being a lizard, you have no hair at all; And now you are pale, and now you become gray, Then livid, then yellow to the very depths. And now red, and immediately black, And you could become spotted like a deer. And one might see you tawny, just like a lion. Thus while this body is being altered, Nature alone ignored the color white.

^C The deer is timid. A weak heart, and a spirit within that is cowardly, And the sharp points of the horns rise up so much. For never would they struggle against those on the head, Neither before powerful wild beasts, nor before troublesome dogs, Nor even against timid, hare-footed hares.

"Deer-like man" is said of a cowardly person by way of metaphor from the animal; for the deer is timid. ^D

^A At Eustathius does not write that the deer does this by breath, but by the friction of its horns against a rock and their exhalation. Therefore, Plutarch rightly thought that the Greek word for deer (*elaphos*) was derived not from running (*elaphros*, swift), but from the ease with which it draws out serpents. And Athanasius, in his *Questions*, preserves the same etymology. Thus Epiphanius, in the *Physiologus*, chap. 5: "For this reason, it is called a deer (*elaphos*), because it draws (*helkein*) the serpents out from the depths." Thus also, in narrating this history, the authors do not agree. For Eustathius [claims] the deer first drinks water, and then draws the serpent from its hiding-place. Others [claim it] seeks water after that meal; if it does not quench itself within the space described below, it dies.

Col. 741, lin. 4. *And concerning the serpents.* Pliny, lib. x, capit. 70: "Serpents are put to flight by the odor of deer antlers, but most by that of storax." And lib. xxviii, cap. 9: "No one is ignorant that deer are destructive to serpents, as they eat those that are drawn out of their caves. Nor indeed do the serpents oppose them only while they are breathing, but it has been stated also that they are put to flight limb by limb by the scent of the antler, if it is burned: but it is said that they are gathered together by the burned bones from the highest part of the throat, etc." And lib. viii, cap. 32: "Thus, the odor of burned deer antler is singular for driving away serpents. Such is the antipathy of this animal toward serpents, that both the dead [antler] and the [scent] limb by limb are destructive to them." Aelian, *De histor. anim.*, lib. ix, cap. 20: "That deer horn, when burned, drives away serpents, is evident." And lib. ii, cap. 9: "Already, someone has scraped a deer's horn, then threw the scrapings into a fire, and the rising smoke drives away the serpents from every side, as they cannot even endure the smell." The Scholiast of Apollonius, lib. II *Argonaut.*, writes: "Burned deer horn puts serpents to flight, just as smoke does bees." Theophrastus in a fragment; Nicander in the *Alexipharmaca*. Orpheus in his poem *On Stones* has diligently pursued the virtues and medicinal powers of the deer and the stag.

Ibid., lin. 6. *When it loses them.* That the horns of stags are cast off every year and grow again is sufficiently known in history. Horus, Aristotle, Pliny, Aelian, and others. The cause of this is taken from Democritus in Aelian, lib. xii, cap. 18: Democritus, namely, says that the cause of the growth of the horns in deer is this. They are buried in hidden and inaccessible places by the earth. ^D Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, lib. ix, cap. 5: "It loses its horns also in the most difficult places, and where they cannot be found, whence that proverb has arisen, 'Where the deer lose their horns.'" Pliny, lib. viii, cap. 32: "The males have horns, and they alone of animals shed them every year at a stated time in the spring. For this reason, on that very day, they make for the most inaccessible areas." Oppianus *Cynegetica* II:

"Excellently among wild beasts they glory in their splendor, The males, fair-horned, having a manifold branch, For when their branched horns have fallen in their seasons, They have buried them, having dug a pit in the earth, So that no one may take them by happening upon the furrow." But it shall be said below whether female deer have horns.

^A Ibid., line 9. "As if casting off." For their boldness because they have something with which they defend themselves. Oppianus in *Cynegetica* refers this to shame: "They hide themselves in the furthest, thickest thickets, Ashamed for the beasts to see their heads Bare, which previously they carried aloft." Aristotle, however, along with others, brings forward the same cause that our author here supplies: that they fear the biting of gadflies, which would easily pierce the tender roots of their horns, causing them the greatest pain. Likewise, because they do not have the wherewithal to defend themselves by fighting off other wild beasts, *De hist. anim.*, book IX, chap. 5: "For as if he had lost his weapons, he takes care not to be found unarmed." And further down: "They lose their horns each year in the month of April; and when they have lost them, they hide themselves for a time," as I said above, and they do this in dark places, so that they may be free from the annoyance of gadflies. In the book *On Wonderful Accounts* regarding Achaean deer: "Some say that in Achaia, when the deer cast their horns, they go to such places so as not to be easily found. And they do this because they do not have that with which they may defend themselves, and because the places where the horns were cast off are painful." ^B And Theophylact Simocatus in *Natural Questions*: "The deer knows, having shed its horns, that its nature is weaker to defend itself against those who would harm it. Therefore it hides itself like an unarmed soldier fearing to join battle. And wishing to be far from the fight, the animal grieves most terribly in its head at these things. And the deer also knows that having the right horn is a great advantage; and indeed it buries it and hides it out of envy, so that no one may enjoy it too much." Theophrastus, *On the so-called envious animals*. ^C And "feeds by night." They are also said to be cautious, lest perhaps, while their sores are fresh, the sun's ray falling upon them before they have hardened and taken on what are called "knobs," the flesh should fester. "Wishing to test." "When they no longer feel pain when rubbing themselves against trees, then they leave those places." "Now it has been recorded that an Achaean deer was caught having much green ivy growing on its horns, as it sprouts when the horns are tender as if on green wood."

^D Which Plinius expressed in Latin: "However, they sprout again with tender bumps, first similar to dry skin. The same things grow on them like small reed-like bits of tender, feathery down. As long as they lack them, they go to their pastures by night, and they harden as they grow in the heat of the sun; testing them against trees, they emerge into the open where they pleased." But it is wrong here to omit that word of Aristotle in the subject matter, which, as is manifest from their interpretations, has caused great men trouble. Aristotle says: Theodorus Gaza translates it thus: "The deer is already caught carrying green ivy grown upon its horns, etc." And Plinius, translating the same thing: "And they are already caught with ivy greening on their horns from the rubbing of trees, as if on some tender wood, while they test what has grown." Everything is well enough, why not? I have the mind of Aristotle, all things seem plain. But I do not yet see what that is which has been added to the deer. Since Aristotle had posited this, the translators should not have omitted it without a note of ignorance. But something must be forgiven these most modest men. What of the most sharp-sighted Julius Scaliger, whom nothing escapes, and in whom, if you concede errors and lapses, it is necessary to take away even his divinity, nor would he himself disdain at times to confess that he is a man. Scaliger therefore translates Aristotle thus: "But now the deer is caught carrying much green ivy on its horns, as if it had grown there while they were tender, just as in a green tree." Not a whit better. I still do not know by what reason the name is rejected. Which you should not omit. But let us see what Aristotle hinted at. I held the opinion for a long time that there ought to be restored in that place *Achaicus*, from the Achaia region, unless the same thing were to be retained by a new kind of formation from *Achaia*, and that Aristotle spoke of a deer caught, namely, in Achaia. The same Aristotle confirmed my opinion, who in the booklet *On Wonderful Accounts* says that deer, once their horns are lost, seek out solitudes, which place we have written out above; for there he adds: "These however seemed not sufficient, neither to doubt nor to the expectation of men, since it was still uncertain whether he spoke of Achaean deer, of whose mention nothing was made, but he says, having drawn from another beginning: But with the matter better inspected and considered, I restore the place of Aristotle thus: *Achaea*, or what is better. For I wish to call this deer thus, because the Etymologist reporting about the city of Achaea, or even the region, says there are genera of great deer, and therefore they are called deer so: *Achaea* or...

Achainas, as Aristotle says in his second book *De histor. animal.*, cap. 15. The deer called *achainas* are thought to have bile in their tail, which Scaliger in his ninth book wants to be called *achaitas*. How correctly, is the judgment of others. From Aristotle, Antigonus Carystius in his *Mirabilia*: "They think that those deer called *achainoi* have bile in their tail." However, the same Antigonus resolves all doubt, transcribing the words of Aristotle: "And already the *achainē* deer, which has ivy on its horns, has been taken, as if they were very moist." Wherefore I think that we should write, ἤδη δὲ εἴληπται ἀχαιΐνης ἔλαφος, and translate: "And already the *achainēs* deer has been caught."

Ibid., line 19. "Against bites." Aristotle in the same place: "Deer, whether bitten by a spider or any animal of the same genus, eat crabs." Which the same is also thought to be beneficial to man; but it is not without disgust. Plutarch, Book 1, *Which are more clever of the animals*, Nicander in his *Theriacs*, Oppian in his *Cynegetica* II:

But he, knowing the gift which he received from God, Everywhere hunts the dark stream of the river. Thence having subdued the crabs with his beloved jaws, He has a self-taught remedy for the harmful bane.

Some things concerning deer regarding which authors disagree seem worthy of note. Aristotle, book VI *Histor. anim.*, cap. 28; Strabo, Pliny, Seneca, Lucan, Antigonus, Herodotus in *Melpomene*, with one voice confess that in Libya there is neither deer nor any boar. Oppian attributes them to Africa, book II *Cyneg.* He had this in common with Virgil, who in books I and IV makes Aeneas disturbing deer on the shore of Africa and transfixing them, and with Philostratus. Albericus Gentilis, in book *Virgil. lect.*, c. 8, thinks that Virgil, when he placed deer in Africa, followed the historian Timaeus, whose authority is not mediocre. And Brodaeus reports, in his book *Miscellan.* VIII, cap. 13, that Italians and Gauls who had been held captive by the barbarians in Africa were questioned about this matter, and replied that they had seen very many deer in Africa. Some of the hunters also have seemed to defend Virgil in this way; namely, that he had spoken by prolepsis (anticipation), a figure familiar to poets. For they say that in the age of those who denied it, there were no deer in Africa, but in Virgil's age they had already been brought in from elsewhere, and therefore the poet wished to use that figure which in Greek is called *prolēpsis*. This will seem to be said probably if one considers the Carpathian hares, and also the Sicilian ones, which, although not imported, multiplied to the point of disgust and harm. That vindication is weak, however, if we wish to confess the truth. Since Pliny, Seneca, Strabo, Lucan, Antigonus, peers of the Virgilian age, or, so to say, if not inferior, did not notice this, all of them are to be accused of negligence, so that Virgil alone might be judged. Another vindication therefore must be sought. Aristotle, book II, cap. 15, denies that there is bile in the deer and the fallow deer, as in certain other animals as well, and adds: "It is believed that in Achainian deer it is contained in the tail"; and in book IV, *De part. animal.*, chapter 2: "Some animals lack bile altogether, such as the horse, the mule, the ass, the deer, the fallow deer, and a little later: For this reason it is said by the ancients that they live longer, because the lack of bile, they say, is the cause, an argument deduced from the genus of solipeds and deer: for these both lack bile, and live long." Pliny, book XI, cap. 37, because of what ^A Aristotle himself reports regarding the Achainian alone, he reports regarding all: "There are some who think that it is not in the liver, but in the belly, and in the deer in the tail or intestines." Pliny in the same place reports that the intestines of deer have such bitterness that they are not touched by dogs. Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, book II, cap. 15, writes that they are not touched by dogs, unless the deer is very fat. Experience and hunters show that this is false, who, when a deer is caught, are in the habit of feeding the dogs with its viscera, intestines, and blood. ^B Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, book IV, last chapter: "The female of the deer genus is devoid of horns, and mutilated," and *De part. anim.*, book III, cap. 1, "Wherefore in the genus of deer, since the males have horns, the females lack them"; and in the same chapter he adds the reason for this. Pollux, *Onomast.*, book V: "Of deer, the female is without horns; but the male is horn-bearing, or horned." Others attributed horns to females: Pindar in *Olymp.* 3, "gold-horned doe." Callimachus in his *Hymn to Diana*, when he was speaking of female deer, "and the gold of the horns shone forth." Where the Scholiast notes this as a novelty: "Note," he says, "that he called the female deer horn-bearing." What should I note here in such ignorance of things? This was solemn for poets, who were supporters of the contrary opinion, some of whom Aelian gathered, *De hist. anim.*, book VII, cap. 39, namely Sophocles in his *Aloads*; Euripides in *Iphigenia* and *Temenidai*; Pindar, Anacreon; and Julius Scaliger, book III, *Poet.*, cap. 4, writes that in his age a horned doe was caught in Gaul and its head is even still preserved. Joannes Langius, *Epistol. medicinal.*, ep. 70, book I, on the report of Henricus Salmuthius in his commentary on the *New Discoveries* of Guido Panciroli, title 10, concerning clocks, writes that in the uterus of a horned deer, which Ottho Henricus, Count Palatine, had caught near Odewangh, a fawn surrounded by membranes was found when it was being eviscerated, and from this he concludes that certain deer vary the nature of their sex, because it has been observed that does sometimes carry horns, which are the virile weapons of deer. ^C Which a certain Margrave of Baden, having caught it, had sent as a gift to the King of the French, which, having been affixed to the wall near the inner door in the royal garden at Amboise, with witnesses who had been present at the hunt inscribed on a tablet, can be seen even now. Wherefore Salmuthius concludes that from that carrying of horns the mutation of sex is not sufficiently proven. Aristotle, book IX, last chapter, says that in deer, if they are castrated before they have horns, horns do not grow; but if they are castrated when already horned, they remain always of the same size. If deer are castrated while they do not yet carry horns by reason of age, they do not produce horns: but if they are castrated after being horned, the horns do not fall off and are preserved of the same size. Pliny: The horns of castrated deer do not fall off.

^A nor are they born. Solinus and Porphyry in *On Abstinence from Animal Food* and Oppian in his *Cynegetica* II are of the same opinion, but Oppian in *Cynegetica* II sings the contrary:

They hide within the depths of the belly under the flank Twin ducts, which if one were to shear, Straightway he makes the female, and from the head He casts away the sharp-pointed, many-wrought branch of horns.

Ibid., line 21. *And the wild goat.* Aristotle in *On Marvelous Things Heard* and book IX of *Historia Animalium*, ch. 6; Antigonus, Pliny, book XXV, ch. 8: *To show the dittany*, as we indicated, for wounded creatures, with the arrows falling out immediately. Theophrastus in *Historia Plantarum* book IX, ch. 16; Virgil, book XII of the *Aeneid*.

Ibid., line 22. *What is called dittany.* Nicander called it *dictamnum*. It is peculiar to Crete, nor does it grow elsewhere, and even there not abundantly. Theophrastus reports that it is useful for many things in *Historia Plantarum* book XXV, ch. 8, and he makes three species of it that are distinct from one another. From him Pliny took his information: for Theophrastus [mentions] the use of the leaves, not the branches, nor the fruit; it is not the flower, nor the fruit that is useful. Thus Pliny: *They use only the leaves.* There is no flower, or seed, or stalk to it. If it is *dictamnum* and has no stalk or seed, then they must use the leaves even if they are reluctant. Yet it certainly does flower and bear fruit, as can be gathered from this passage of Theophrastus, from a careful reading of Dioscorides, and from Virgil, book XII of the *Aeneid*, verse 412:

The mother [Crete] gathers for her the dittany from Ida, With downy leaves and purple-flowered stalk; Not unknown to the wild goats is this herb, When the winged arrows have struck their backs.

Therefore, there is a stalk, and a flower, and a seed, Pliny, and so they use *only* the leaves, as you have rendered it very well.

Ibid., line 24. *But the leopards.* Above, we recounted the opinions of those who thought the leopard and the panther were one and the same animal and by what reasoning they distinguish them. In this matter, it is certainly easier to say what others have argued against than to bring forward anything certain which others might not oppose. For if one must stand by the tracks of Pliny, Theophrastus, and Aristotle, we cannot deny that they are animals of the same genus. For Theophrastus, in *De Causis Plantarum* book VI, ch. 26, says that no animal is fragrant, unless someone might say that the leopard smells good to living creatures. Aristotle, *Problemata* section 13, 4, says no animal smells sweet except the leopard, which he also affirms smells that way only to beasts. Pliny also confuses them in book VIII, ch. 17: *Now they call them 'parias' and 'pardi,' which are the males, in that whole genus, most common in Asia and Syria.* Some distinguish them from these by the whiteness of the panther alone: nor have I yet found any other difference. But our author here teaches that these are diverse genera of animals, as he institutes a discussion about two most different things: although in some [points they] seem to agree. Thus also Xenophon in *Cynegetica*, and Oppian in *Cynegetica* II, who treat of them separately. Oppian, in that passage, turning his discourse ^B toward his Muse, says that he does not wish to linger long on small things, but to dismiss unwarlike and wretched beasts, such as panthers, weasels, dormice; and afterwards, in book III, having completed his discourse on lions, he adds the leopard genus, as being noble in strength, beauty, and breed. It is sufficiently clear, therefore, that Oppian considered the leopard and the panther to be different things, and he establishes a twofold genus of them. For some are larger in appearance and broader in the back, others are smaller, but of equal strength, similar in form, not unequal in spots, nor in the lines of the body, if you take away the tail, which in the smaller is larger, and in the larger is smaller.

Ibid. *For, clearly knowing.* Aelian reported in *Historia Animalium* book V, ch. 40, that other animals are drawn by the smell of the leopard, as if by a lure: Consult Plutarch *On the Cleverness of Animals*; Aristotle, *Historia Animalium* book IX, ch. 6; ^C Theophrastus, *De Causis Plantarum* book VI, ch. 5, who attempt to furnish the cause of such an odor. Aristotle refers the foul odor to a certain crudity of excrement, which is the cause of a foul breath in the living, and [in the dead] when it putrefies: and for this reason, fat, bone, and hair never render a foul odor, because the fat is digested, and bones and hair are devoid of moisture. But no genus of plants collects internal excrement, and if anything were present, its hot and dry nature digests it more easily, and so their moisture is not feculent; and this is confirmed by the regions of the earth, which, as they are hotter, are so much the more fragrant. Theophrastus agrees with Aristotle in some things, and dissents in others, to which, lest we wander too long, we refer the reader. Neither, however, replied to the first question, nor solved the knot of the difficulty. For while the discussion was about the leopard, which they conceded was the only one among animals that was fragrant, it was not enough to assign the cause for which trees and plants are fragrant, and animals are not. But that had to be explained: by what reason, among other animals, the leopard alone smells good, and this animal's odor...

is perceived in none among the other animals except in the leopard alone? But while those great men, Theophrastus and Aristotle, turn themselves to the proposed question and evade it, who is so bold as to be confident that he can resolve it? God ^A can do many things, and bring about various ends, which the human intellect will not grasp. Many things God has reserved for Himself alone, and their knowledge. Among a few, among the least, O happy man, you become so proud and insolent with your own help; if you were better in more secret matters, what would you do? Beware of measuring God by your own ingenuity, by your own powers; you are too narrow, O little man.

Ibid., line 29. *The panther, the beast.* Peter Damian has similar things to say about the panther (lib. II, epist. 18); Pliny (lib. VIII, cap. 17) says that the panther and the tiger are noticed as being almost the only beasts for the variety of their spots, while for the rest, the color of each kind is uniform and peculiar to itself. Hence, those leopard and panther hides, and *spotted after the manner of panthers.*

Ibid., line 31. *And as far as it is not necessary.* Oppian (lib. II, Hunting) has described the sleep and lethargy of panthers and other animals; see him.

Ibid., line 35. *Through which the others.* What we have explained above concerning the leopard, its odor, and its cleverness, many ascribe to the panther, either for that reason alone that they confuse and mix together very different animals, and therefore we refer the reader to those things, lest we be tiresome by repeating the same things again. Here we could also doubt by what reason animals are enticed by the odor of panthers, as has been handed down by many authors, since Theophrastus (De causis plantar., lib. V, cap. 5) says that among the brutes there is entirely no, or certainly a rare, case where one follows an odor, nor do they perceive or judge for the sake of smell, since even if some might perceive it, it is nevertheless contrary to their nature; and it is said of the class of insects which are infested by oil, for they flee its odor vehemently. I shall resolve this knot in a few words: it is not certain to men whether they perceive the odor or whether they pursue an odorous object for its sake, or whether their appetite is directed only toward the food itself, and that is the cause. And although animals may possess a sense of smell more exquisite than that of humans, yet it is not certain that they perceive the odor or are led by it.

Ibid., line 41. *And the elephant is pregnant.* Plautus in the *Stichus*: I have often heard it said by many in the crowd, That a pregnant elephant is wont for ten whole years To carry, from its seed this is surely the fame. Aelian (De hist. anim., lib. IV, cap. 31): I learn that the elephant carries for two years. But others do not agree on that amount of time, but rather acknowledge eighteen months. Aristotle, from the opinion of others, De histor. animal. lib. VI, cap. 27: Some set the time of carrying in the womb at one year and six months, others at three years; and he adds the cause of this difference and uncertainty, namely that the act of mating is not manifest. And in lib. V, cap. 14: It carries in the womb for two years: it brings forth one: for it is a creature that brings forth one at a time; and in lib. V (De generat. animal., last chapter) he affirms the same, and gives the cause: the excess of its magnitude. Pliny (lib. VIII, cap. 10) reports both opinions: the public thinks they gestate for ten years in the womb, Aristotle for two years, and that they do not give birth more than once, nor more than one at a time. However, that it is impossible for them to bring forth one at a time and only once, according to Aristotle, Scaliger (Exercit. 205, De subtilitate, to Cardan) asserts that Pliny does not claim this. Nor does he imply that it was added by copyists from Solinus, who in his own way had faithfully recorded this same thing word for word, and he openly shows by reason that this is false: for if one offspring succeeds to two parents, it must eventually come to nothing. But in truth it not only brings forth once, but even more than one at a time, as we were saying. For he said above, that it does not only bring forth one, but that there are triplets and quadruplets, for so many are seen to accompany them. These last words of Scaliger in Peripatetic doctrine do not seem sufficiently secure. Namely, that elephants bring forth several in one and the same birth; and although it does not escape me that Aelian (lib. VIII, cap. 27) might have in some way insinuated this, yet it is most clear from the opinion of others that he wrote this in those very words. *The elephant is born leaping forth by the head. But the size of the one born is the size of the largest piglet. And, they say, several little elephants follow one mother.* And Scaliger would be even unwillingly forced to affirm this by most valid reasoning at least in the Indian elephant, when in lib. VIII, cap. 17, he says that those elephants mate only once in their life. *At least once in their lives they celebrate Venus; when the female also endures it. Then, having filled himself, each goes to his mate, and from that point on he does not see her again.* Either then this genus of elephants generates more than one at a birth, or with two parents only one offspring would succeed, and it would eventually have to be reduced to nothing. But further so Pliny (lib. X, cap. 53): Elephants, camels, and horses bring forth one; and lower down: Elephants, as we have said, bring forth one, of the size of a three-month-old calf. Nor does this opinion seem to differ from the Aristotelian one. For Aristotle (De generat. animal. lib. IV, cap. 4): *For first, indeed, why some are prolific and others bring forth one, this one might reasonably wonder at. For the largest of animals bring forth one, such as the elephant, camel, horse, and those with a single hoof.* And because that seemed more probable, that larger animals, since they could provide more seed, should also generate more, the contrary of which is strange. He answers this argument with a most valid and most suitable reason: namely, that their magnitude causes them not to bring forth many; for food in them is consumed for the growth of the body; but in smaller ones, nature, by taking away from the magnitude, increases the excess in the seminal excretion. And he confirms this with another reason, namely, that more seed...

must be provided for the smaller animal. But many things can be accomplished by small things in this same [nature], [whereas] many [things] are difficult to be accomplished by large ones; yet, for intermediate [creatures], nature has given a middle ground of magnitude. What, therefore, is clearer than this in the doctrine of Aristotle? What is more certain? Elephants, on account of the bulk of their body and their huge size, neither can nor ought to bring forth several at one effort, if we do not wish to violate the force and laws of nature. Contrary to these things, however, one might bring forward something doubtful from Aristotle himself: for he says: "Some are unipara, some paucipara, some multipara; and they are unipara for the most part, which are solid-hoofed; paucipara, which are cloven-hoofed; multipara, which are multi-fid," but the elephant, by the opinion of Aristotle himself, is multifidus; and in *De hist. anim.*, cap. 1, he writes that the elephant has toes, five in number, undivided and slightly distinct; and in *De part. anim.*, cap. 16, that elephants do not have cloven hooves, nor solid feet, but [feet] divided into toes. It is necessary, therefore, that they bring forth not one but several at one effort. I do not wish to linger here any longer. Seek the solution to these things from Aristotle himself, in the place cited, *De gener. anim.* The magnitude and bulk of the body is conducive to birth, not the diverse kinds of feet; and note those words, "For the most part"; for that opinion and rule is not always true, even if sometimes the opposite has been seen and observed by Scaliger, or by some other, I know not whom; yet the Aristotelian reasoning has its own weight and force, and we shall not on that account declare it false. For all have always said that a woman brings forth only one in one birth; who will deny that? Yet we have seen many times that one woman has brought forth several children in the same birth, and other animals, even if they are solid-hoofed. What follows from this? That which rarely happens in nature, happens in one [case], or in some, not in all and always; we affirm [this]. Sometimes monsters are also born, yet we do not ascribe this as something proper [to the species]. ^A tical deserts, and in Mauritania: they report that Ethiopians and Troglodytes [live there], as it has been said: but India [has] the largest, and dragons of such magnitude, waging perpetual war against them, that they even encircle them with an easy winding, and bind them fast in the knot of their coils. This conflict is ruinous, and the vanquished, falling, crushes the serpent's coil by its weight. On the slaughter and battle of dragons and elephants, Philo *De incorruptibilitate mundi* [speaks] most elegantly. I will not be loath to write his words here: "They say that the dragons in India suffer a similar fate. For they creep upon the elephants, which are the largest of animals, and coil themselves around their backs and their entire bellies; cutting through any vein they chance upon, they drink up the blood, greedily drawing it in with a violent breath and shrill hissing. When for some time, on account of [the dragon's] depletion, they withstand it, jumping about ^B out of helplessness, and by the pro-proboscis striking the flank, as if those dragons were settling [upon them], then, as the vital force is perpetually exhausted, [the elephants] are no longer able to leap, [but] stand trembling. A little later, when their legs have also grown weak, they are shaken and expire. And those falling, they destroy the authors of their death in such a way as this. The dragons, no longer having nourishment, attempt to unknot the bound they had imposed, now desiring a release. But they are pressed and crushed by the weight of the elephants, and much more so when it happens to be on dry and stony ground. For, wriggling and doing everything for a release, they are fettered by the force of the fallen [elephant], and having exhausted themselves in many ways in helpless and desperate straits, they grow weak, just like those who are stoned, or those caught by a wall that has suddenly collapsed, and, not even able to raise their heads, they die stifled." ^C It is reasonable, too, that a strong hatred and the fear of the lion for the cock, and of the elephant for the pig, have arisen. The small, grunting, young of pigs ^D also frighten the might of the elephants. Pliny says the elephant fears the horned ram and the squealing of a pig. Thus, therefore, they say, the Romans put to flight the elephants of Pyrrhus, King of Epirus; and the victory fell brilliantly to the Romans. Idem Plinius, lib. viii, cap. 5, "By their sense of shame they never mate except in secret."

^A "With a memory for friendship." Aristotle, *De histor. anim.*, lib. vi, cap. 22: "The most lecherous of all, both of females and males, is the horse, excluding man; and that mares are inflamed with the greatest lust, is affirmed by Aelian, *De histor. animal.*, lib. iv, cap. 11; wherefore also, those who wish to reproach lascivious women are accustomed to call them mares." "I hear that mares alone of all animals, even when pregnant, submit to the mating of the males. For they are most lascivious; and on this account, those women who are unchaste are called 'mares' by those who wish to censure them more decorously." And Aristotle called the mare "lustful by nature," *De gener. anim.*, lib. iv, cap. 5. "For they alone of all animals," he says, "the woman and the mare, endure coitus when pregnant." And *De histor. animal.*, lib. vii, cap. 4: "Women and mares are of all animals the most prone to coitus when pregnant; the rest, once they are pregnant, flee from the males, that is, those whose nature rejects superfetation after the manner of the hare." Plinius, lib. x, cap. 43, joins the sow to them. It is strange how pregnant quadrupeds avoid Venus, except the mare and the sow. You have the reason for this in Aristotle, *De generatione animal.*, lib. iv, cap. 5: "And because their nature is solid; and solid things are more desirous of Venus, since they lack purgation, which is to females as coitus is to males; and the mare produces almost no menses. And because there remains for it some space in the womb, larger than to be occupied by one, but tighter than to allow another to be perfectly superfetated." And *De histor. animal.*, lib. vii, cap. 22: "Their herd is then perfected, when the parents mate with their own offspring, or the colts with their dams." However this may be, there is told a famous story about the chastity of horses; for where a colt, deceived by cunning tricks and fragrant oils and odors, had committed incest with its dam, even she being unaware, upon the crime being known after such a foul deed, both the colt and the mother threw themselves down headlong. You have this in Aelian, *De hist. animal.*, lib. iv, cap. 7; Oppian, *Cynegetica*, lib. ii; Aristotle, *De histor. animal.*, lib. ix, cap. 47; Pliny, lib. vii, cap. 42; Varro, *De re rustica*, lib. ii, cap. 7. Who, even if they do not all agree in everything, but one records it differently than another, yet it is a settled fact that those horses left to posterity monuments of their chastity by their own death. Aristotle tells similar things about camels there, and repeats them in *De mirabilibus auscultationibus*, and Aelian, lib. iii, cap. 47.

Ibid. "The sluggish ass, and." Basil, hom. 8: "The ass knows its accustomed voice, it knows the road which it has walked many times, and sometimes it even proves a guide to one who has gone astray. Its keenness of hearing is not said to be matched by any other of the land animals." Aelian, lib. vii, cap. 19: "And it is not bad to recount these characteristics of animals. The sheep and the ass seem to be somewhat more sluggish."

Ibid., lin. 5. "The camel is mindful of injuries." Basil, hom. 8: "And as for the vindictiveness of camels, and their heavy wrath, and their persistence in anger—what could one find to imitate it among sea creatures? Once struck, a camel, having stored up its wrath for a long time, as soon as it obtains an opportunity, repays the evil." It is confirmed

^A by the example brought forward by Aristotle and Aelian: for once the bite is fixed, after it has finished the copulation, it kills the camel driver. I shall not remain silent regarding the error Aristotle makes in determining the period of gestation for camels; for he himself, in book V, cap. 14 of the *History of Animals*, says that the womb carries for twelve months, [but] in book VI, cap. 26, he says ten months, and that it gives birth to one. For it is monotocous. And "the camel conceives for ten months, and it always gives birth to one only. For it is monotocous." Who would not wonder at this in Aristotle, and be ashamed?

Ibid., line 6. "An untamed wolf." Aristotle, *History of Animals*, book I, cap. 1. I add also that some animals are tame, others wild; and others are perpetually tame, as man and the mule, others perpetually wild, as the panther and the wolf.

Ibid., line 7. "A grateful dog." Pliny, book VIII, cap. 40: "Among these animals also which live with us, many are worth knowing: and the dog, before all others, is most faithful to man, as is the horse. We have heard of a dog fighting against robbers for its master, and, though covered with wounds, not retreating from the body, driving away birds and beasts. By another in Epirus, it was recognized in a gathering, its biting and barking forcing the executioner of its master to confess the crime." In the same chapter there is more about the love and benevolence shown toward masters. Regarding these, there is much that is memorable in Rhodiginus, book XVII, cap. 18; Alexander ab Alexandro, book I, cap. 3; Aelian, *De historia animalium*, book VII, cap. 29; book II, cap. 40; book VII, cap. 9 and 10; book VI, cap. 11 and 62; book XII, cap. 35; book I, cap. 8; Aristotle, Belisarius Aquivivus *De venatione*, and others, whatever Julius Scaliger may say. Concerning the excellence of British dogs, see William Camden in his *Britannia*, page 193.

Ibid., line 12. "This monstrous nature of the hyena." Pliny named it so, book XXVIII, cap. 8, because of the wonderful things it attempts or hears. It simulates human speech among the stalls of shepherds. It learns the names of those whom it calls out [to] in order to tear them apart. It imitates human vomiting, in order to lure the dogs which it then attacks. It digs up the graves of bodies for the sake of investigation. Oppian, book III of the *Cynegetica*, has recorded that this animal has both natures, and that it changes into male and female every year; as does Phile in his *Iambics*. Aelian, book I, cap. 25 (for so I correct it), Horus, book II, cap. 69; Ovid, *Metamorphoses* XV: “Thou, hyena, who now as a female hast endured the male with thy back, art now a male.” Clemens Alexandrinus, *Paedagogus*, cap. 18.

Ibid., line 14. Aristotle supports our author, who writes that those who affirmed that the hyena is mated and mates in alternate years, and that the hyena is seen to be male and female by the distinction of its genitals, wrote foolishly and with great error, *De generatione animalium*; and in book VI of the *History of Animals*, cap. 32, he writes: "But what is reported about it, that it has the same genital [organ] for both male and female, is a fabrication." ^{B C}

Ibid., line 15. Aristotle in the stated place, *De generatione animalium*: "But hyenas, both males and females, have under the tail a certain line similar to the female genital, which mark, although it is common, is yet observed more in males, because males are caught more often than females."

Ibid., line 23. Aristotle in the cited places: "Males are caught more often than females," and, "But the female hyena is rarely caught; a certain hunter once reported that among eleven he had caught only one." And Pliny, book VIII, cap. 30, is the authority that the female is rarely caught.

Ibid., line 26. "And the hare." Oppian sang of the lust of the hare, and its wanton salacity, and likewise its fecundity. *Cynegetica* III: "They yearn unceasingly for marriage, and even when close [to birth] They never refuse the violent urge for the draft of passion, Nor even when they carry in their bellies a rapid and prolific [offspring]. For this tribe is preeminent, which the vast earth has nurtured, It becomes very prolific. For one embryo jumps out From [the mother's] womb finished; another she carries ^D Without hair, and another she nourishes half-finished; Another she has inside, a hairless, formless infant. She brings them forth in order, and the shameless female never Forgets her lust, but performs whatever the spirit commands, Not even refusing Cytherea during the birth pangs." Aelian, *De historia animalium*, book II, cap. 12, "She carries even in her womb some that are half-formed, others for which she is in labor, and others that have already been born." Phile in *Iambics*; Pliny, book X, cap. 43, "Dasypodes (rabbits) give birth every month, and are superfetated just like hares. Aristotle, *De historia animalium*, book VI."

cap. 35, *They beget every month, but do not bring forth all the fetuses at once; for with days intervening, as the matter permits, they complete the delivery.* Concerning their fecundity, Pliny (book VIII, cap. 29 and 55), Strabo (book III), Basil (*Hexaemeron*, homily 8), Simeon Logothetes (from the same Basil, oration 5), and Ambrose (book *De Tobia*, cap. 15) have written; and the reason for this, aside from Aristotle (Problemata, section 10, and book IV *De generatione animalium*, cap. 5), is explained by Herodotus in his *Thalia*: "But since divine providence is, as is fitting, wise, it has made all those creatures that are cowardly and edible to be prolific, so that they may not disappear from being eaten; but those that are fierce and harmful, it has made few in number." This is because the hare is hunted by every beast, and by bird, and by man. ^A Thus, indeed, it is highly prolific: it alone of all wild animals conceives while already pregnant; and while some of its offspring are hairy in the womb, others are hairless, others are just being formed in the uterus, and others are being created. I have heard a story from a man who is both a hunter and a good man, not one who would lie, and I have believed him. I cannot persuade myself not to trust the story, and the reason is that the man’s tongue knew neither falsehood nor boasting. ^B

*A griffin seizes a lion.* Whence did the griffin gain such great strength, that it snatches a bull from ready prey, and, winged, is carried off, while it walks on four feet? It contends with other animals and prevails most easily. Yet it does not stand against the lion, nor against the elephant.

*Eagle among us.* The eagle is a greedy animal, and they provide for their sustenance by robbery, and eat flesh; for they snatch hares, and fawns, and geese from the courtyard, and other things. And having brought forth, again. ^C

*They say regarding the griffin.* I hear that the griffin is an Indian animal, quadruped like the lions, and has very strong claws, and these are similar to those of lions. ^D It has wings, and they sing that the color of these wings is black. They say the front parts are red, but the wings themselves are no longer of that color, but white, and Ctesias relates that their necks are decorated with blue feathers. They have an eagle-like mouth, and a head such as those who work in handicraft draw and model. They say its eyes are fiery.

It also hunts the goose, and the gazelle, and the hare, and the race of bulls. [alt-version omitted]

the eagle which they called Jove's, not to partake of flesh, but that grass is sufficient for it for food.

Ibid., line 33. *The charadrius is an animal.* Peter Damian seems to have had these matters of Eustathius before his eyes when, in book II, epistle 18, he spoke of the charadrius. Theophylact Simocatta explains the cause of this property in *Quaest. nat.*, quest. 15, page 18. It is thus named from "passing through ravines" (*charadras*), according to the Scholiast on Aristophanes, and Aristotle, book IX, chap. 11: "Some make their dwellings about ravines, others in crevices and rocks, such as the one called the charadrius." Aelian recounts that it is killed by bitumen, book VI, *De histor. animal.*, chap. 46.

Ibid., p. 34. *Very white throughout.* Epiphanius in *Physiologus*, chap. 23: "The physiologist spoke concerning this, that it is entirely white, without having any blackness at all." Aristotle, book IX *De histor. animal.*, chap. 11, says that this bird is ill-omened in color and voice, appears at night, and flees by day. Albertus agrees with Eustathius and testifies that it is entirely white.

Ibid., line 39: *For when it says.* Epiphanius in the aforementioned place: "And if someone is ill, and the disease of the man is unto death, the charadrius turns its face away from the sick person; but if the disease is unto life, the charadrius gazes at the sick person, and he who is sick at it." Albertus, the anonymous author of the Psalm commentary on Psalm LXXXIV, verse "O Lord, turn and quicken us," and other more recent authors, report things not dissimilar. It is more common, however, that the sight of the charadrius is beneficial to those suffering from the jaundice. Aelian, book XVII, chap. 13: "This was indeed a gift of the charadrius, which, by Jupiter, it is not right to undervalue. For instance, if someone who has his body filled with jaundice looks at it, and it looks back at him, standing quite motionless, as if rivaling his gaze, such a look heals the man of the aforementioned malady."

^B Ibid., line 45. *The unicorn is an animal.* Peter Damian, book II, ep. 18: "Who bestowed this nobility upon the unicorn, that it disdains to be conquered by force, and allows itself to be easily overcome by the art of humility? It is never, of course, captured by hunters unless it first reclines in the lap of a virgin." Cardano is chided by Julius Scaliger, *exerc.* 205, for having confused the monocerotes with the rhinoceros. Others have judged the oryx and the monocerotes to be the same. The origin of this confusion was that many animals were adorned and armed with only one horn. Wherefore some noted seven kinds of animals with one horn in Pliny. Scaliger, in the aforementioned place, demonstrates that the rhinoceros is most different from the monocerotes in the form of its body. Pliny, in this way, graphically, book VIII, chap. 21: "The most ferocious beast, the monocerotes, is similar to a horse in the rest of its body, with the head of a stag, feet of an elephant, tail of a boar, and a deep bellow; one black horn stands out in the middle of its forehead, ten cubits high. They say this beast cannot be captured alive." Likewise Solinus, chap. 35; Varthema from Scaliger: "The unicorns have the size of a horse, the legs, feet, and head of a stag; the color of the hair is brownish; the mane of the horse is thinner; it has a shorter tail and hairy thighs, etc. Which he says differs most from this one, which is small, of the size of a kid, of extreme swiftness and violence, with a single horn on the top of its head."

Ibid., line 46. *Very swift.* Phile in his Iambics pursues the readiness for battle, the dangers from wounds to other animals, what kind of horn it is, the animal itself, and how it is tamed. Varthema, however, denies that it is ferocious.

Ibid., line 51. *There is an animal called.* Peter Damian, book II, ep. XVIII, to Abbot Desiderius: "The beaver, therefore, when it sees that it is being pursued by a hunter for its genitals, bites them off and casts them before the hunter's face. Thus the hunter at once approaches, when he has extorted that for which he was pursuing the animal. If, however, it happens that another hunter finds its tracks, and pursues it more sharply and urgently, and it is driven to despair of any means of escape, being brought to a narrow pass, it rises up into the face of the hunter and shows that it lacks the virile parts for which it is being hard-pressed. Thus it is freed by the pursuer when it shows that it lacks what is sought." Pliny, book VIII, chap. 30: "An animal of horrific bite, it fells trees near rivers as if with iron. If it catches a part of a man, it does not release its bite until the crushed bones have creaked." Conradus Ritthershusius reports in his *Comment. on book I of Oppian's Halieutica* the skill and intent of this animal in felling trees, as related to him by an eyewitness. They declare that the skill of this little beast, which it uses in felling trees, is astonishing. As many times as it has inflicted a blow on the tree with its teeth, so many times does it run forward from it to see if it sways or threatens a fall, so that it may not perchance be crushed by it; when it sees there is no danger, while the tree is still firm, it returns to the wound until finally it falls. But why does it cut and fell the trees? Surely for this reason, that when they have fallen into the waters, covered with leaves and branches and mire, they may lure the fish, which the beaver then catches and devours. A certain friend of my father, who was an eyewitness to this matter, once reported this to me. Scaliger, *exerc.* 211, no. 6, denies against Cardano that the beaver is tame.

Ibid., line 52. *The genitals are useful.* You have their use in medicines in Pliny, book XXXII, chap. 3, and other physicians.

Ibid., line 53. *When pursued.* That if ever they are in danger, with dogs and hunters in pursuit, they bite off their own genitals and throw them away, and thus escape, has been handed down to memory by many writers, and they redeem themselves with that part of the body for which they are most sought. Horus, book II, chap. 65: "For he, when pursued for the hunt, tears off his own testicles and throws them away." Pliny book VIII, chap. 30: "The Pontic beavers themselves amputate these same parts when the danger is urgent, knowing they are sought for this reason." Juvenal, Sat. 12: "...like the beaver, which makes itself a eunuch, desiring to escape by the loss, and having meditated, it understands the price of its testicles." Ammianus Marcellinus, book XVII; Aelian, *De animal.*

book VI, chapter 34; Solinus, chapter 23, who writes the same about elephants. Alciatus, emblem 152:

*And sluggish of foot, with swollen and hanging belly,* *Yet this the beaver escapes by cunning.* *It bites off its own medicinal testicles,* *And casts them away, knowing it is hunted for them.* *From this example you will learn not to spare things,* *And so that you may redeem your life, to offer an altar to your enemies.*

And many others. Hence too the Aesopic fable, and Apuleius, book [of the] Asini, writes that a Thessalian witch, because her lover had enjoyed the favors of another woman, turned him into a beaver so that he would amputate his own genitals if ever hunters pursued him. ^A Yet the opinion of Sextius the physician, as found in Pliny, book XXIII, chapter 3, is far different: "The power of nature is remarkable also in these animals, which have their sustenance both on land and in water, just as with the beavers, which they call *castoras*, and their castoreum testicles. Sextius, a most diligent student of medicine, denies that these are amputated by the animals themselves when they are caught. Rather, he says they are small, constricted, and attached to the spine, and cannot be removed without the life of the animal. Dioscorides, book II, chapter 29, and Franciscus Vallesius, *De sacra philosophia*, chapter 3, denied the same."

Ibid., line 55: "When others are pursuing. But if it has been gelded previously and saved, and then is pursued again, it stands up and shows that the motive for their zeal—the exhausting struggle—is gone, and it paralyzes the hunters; for then they care even less about the meat. Often, too, while still ungelded, by dragging themselves as far away as possible in flight, and then drawing in the desired part, they have very wisely and craftily deceived them, as if they did not possess what they were hiding."

The Myrmecoleo: The basis of the nature of the ant-lion is without doubt what is read in Job, chapter IV, verse 11: "The ant-lion has perished because it had no prey." You have ^B the best explanation of this passage in Photius, from the fourth book of Eulogius of Alexandria *Against the Novatians*. Regarding these animals, Agatharchides says: "Others say that it is a small animal hostile to ants, which hides itself under the dust and kills the ants carrying grain, and consumes them once they are killed. And it is so called: for just as the lion is the lord of weaker animals, so this little creature preys upon ants; although, to the birds, it is nothing other than an ant."

Ibid., line 8: "The wild ass (onager) is the leader of the herd." Pliny, *History*, book VIII, chapter 30: "Africa pours forth a multitude of wild asses. The males in that kind rule singly over the herds of females." Oppian, *Cynegetica* III; Ammianus Marcellinus, book XXIV: "The multitude of wild asses in Parthian regions is numberless. Therefore, they move together so that by their dense formation they might frustrate the ferocious charges of lions."

Ibid., line 12: "And of those that are born." Pliny, in the same place: "They fear rivals in lust, and therefore they guard the pregnant ones, and the males castrate the young with their teeth; on the other hand, the pregnant ones seek lurking places and desire to give birth by stealth, rejoicing in the abundance of lust." Oppian, ibid., most eloquently—consult him entirely. Isidore, book XII, chapter 1; Olaus Magnus wrongly confuses onagers with elks. It is also not unworthy of memory what Phile writes in his *Iambics*, and Ammianus Marcellinus in book XXIII, concerning them: "Asses, wild as they are, when they are driven by the hunt, cast stones behind them from afar by kicking, in such a way that they pierce the breasts of those pursuing, or shatter their very heads if the bones are pierced." Nor will I pass over this. Oppian, in said place, writes that the meat of onagers is good fodder for wild beasts; Xenophon, [book] I, and Pliny agree. Aelian, in *De animalium natura* book V, writes that their meat is bitter, and Phile in his *Iambics* says: "And the meat is inedible because of its rankness."

Ibid., line 10: "The hedgehog like a sphere." Oppian, *Cynegetica* II, makes two kinds: ^C "I shall not speak of the freezing race of the chill hedgehog, The larger kind (for dual and grievous are the forms Of hedgehogs that dwell in jagged places), and the freezing, Circular fence. For some are small and of no account, Bristling with tiny, projecting thorns; But others are much greater in size, and on either side Bristle with sharp points of more warlike prickles."

Ibid., line 12: "He goes therefore to it." Comaulus, seeing the hedgehog carrying grapes on its back, killed it on the sun-baked ground. "The harvester of sweet grapes, a bane on the sun-baked ground." "The hedgehog, sprouting from the earth with thorns, And rolling secretly in the gardens, And having gathered into his own burrows The fermented grapes plucked from there, Does not have the misfortune of a deadly hunger."

Ibid., line 16: "The fox is deceitful." ^D There are indeed many things which prove the fox to be deceitful and wicked, by which it protects both itself from the snares of enemies, and prepares death for them, and food and medicine for itself; for which reason it is numbered by Aristotle in *De histor. animal.* book I, chapter 1, among the malicious, cunning, and crafty. Oppian in his *Cynegetica* relates that, so that it is not thrown into snares by hunting hunters, it fortifies its nests and caverns with seven openings, so that the escape may be safer and easier.

^A To this also Lactantius Firmianus looks, in his *De ira Dei*, ch. 7: "There are animals," he says, "which open diverse and many exits to their dens, so that if any danger occurs, an escape may lie open to those who are trapped; which they would not do unless intelligence and thought were present in them." You may see many other things among the authors; for we are not writing a history of animals at present, but only showing that our author, in natural matters, does not state new or strange things, but genuine ones, and those handed down by others. And there is no need to gather more here to demonstrate his cunning and craftiness.

Ibid., line 17. More on its arts in hunting and fishing [can be found in] Aelian, book vi, ch. 24, and book i, ch. 36; book iv, ch. 38; book vi, ch. 63; book xiii. How it sets snares against birds, just as our author here has very well explained, [see] Oppian and Epiphanius in the *Physiologus*. The same things are found in Isidore, book xii, ch. 2; Peter Damian, book ii, ep. 18; Albertus, Georgius Agricola, Michael Glycas, and other more recent ones.

Ibid., line 24. Aristotle recorded that the lizard sheds its old age and blinks its eyes; but he did not explain how it recovers the light of its eyes lost in old age. ^{B C}

Ibid., line 58. Regarding the size of dragons and serpents from Metasthenes and others, see Pliny, book viii, ch. 12 and 14; in Strabo, book xv. Onesicritus relates that among Abisarus, king of India, there were two dragons, one of 140 feet, the other of 80. Nearchus, however, [mentions] having seen a female viper sixteen cubits [long]. See Aelian, book x, *De hist. anim.*, ch. 39.

Ibid. Horus, book i, ch. 1.

Ibid., line 42. How it kills serpents and crocodiles, Oppian, *Cynegetica*, book iii, handles elegantly.

Ibid., line 44. But also against [the asp]. Pliny, book viii, ch. 24: "The asp has, moreover, an internecine war with the ichneumon. It is a well-known animal born with this renown most of all in that same Egypt. It often immerses itself in mud and dries itself in the sun. As soon as it has fortified itself with mud in many ways against blows, it proceeds into conflict: in this it receives the futile blows, until, having watched with an oblique head, it invades the throat. And not content with this, it destroys another animal by no means more mild." And Oppian, book iii, of the *Cynegetica*, expressed these our [points] most elegantly. Nicander also in the *Theriaca*; Aelian, *De histor. anim.*, book iii, ch. 22, and book x, ch. 47, and book vi, ch. 38, writes that the ichneumon scatters the eggs of the asp, and removes the future hostile ruin as if they were its own puppies. Horus, book ii, ch. 33, [writes] that it not only rushes upon the serpent, but, having first called others with a cry—all of which things Aristotle also added, *De histor. anim.*, book ii, ch. 6—the ichneumon of Egypt, when it has caught sight of the asp, its enemy snake, does not attack before it calls its companions, and [being] covered with mud, fortifies itself against blows and bites; the method of arming [is] that it first wets its body and rolls itself in the earth.

Col. 748, line 1. Peter Damian, book ii, ep. 18: "The salamander, too, although small, is said to have a miraculous nature; so much so that if by chance it is occasionally submerged in fire, every igneous force is extinguished immediately, as by a flood of rushing water." Nicander, in the *Theriaca*:

And the treacherous salamander is a beast always hateful. It moves forward, having a path through fire, neither burning nor in pain, nor does the flame injure its skin or the tips of its limbs, the skin being porous, through the fire that is not extinguished.

But if it imparts the drink of the porous lizard, which they call the salamander, which not even the blaze of fire has injured.

Or the mighty salamander, noxious to no flames.

In what springs or hidden depths does the salamander make the furnaces ashes?

Ibid., line 3. They say the viper. Basilius, hom. 9: "Vipers, having mastered their wombs, come forth, paying the wages due to the one who gave birth." It is to be noted what Peter Damian narrates, book ii, epistol. 18, regarding this same matter. A viper, he says, possesses by natural custom in this business of mating or giving birth the authority that the male [puts] into its mouth...

^A strikes its head, which she, from the impatience of too much love, bites off and immediately swallows, and from whose head's eyes two whelps are produced, which at the time of birth gnaw the mother's sides on both sides, and thus, perishing themselves at the same time, they break forth as they are born. Who, of course, are parricides before they are sons, and therefore it is never possible to find anything of this kind exceeding two. There are, however, two things regarding the nature of this serpent, which our author and many others with one voice recount here, that should be considered, and first concerning the act of mating; for he says that the viper receives the seed through its mouth, and that the male's member is bitten off by its mouth, in this way bringing death upon the male. Others relate this same thing differently, [saying] that the viper merely has the head of the male inserted into its own mouth during mating, and that it is bitten off by the heat of lust. Horus, lib. II, cap. 59: *For it, when it mates with the male, puts mouth to mouth, and after withdrawing, bites off the head of the male.* Basil, *Against those who are angry*, and *On envy*; Aelian, *On the History of Animals*, lib. I, cap. 14, although he differs slightly from others. Phile, in Iambics:

A warm viper, tangled with its mate, And having finished the once most pleasant marriage, Lies killed by the lover, Who in wrath secretly holds to this one, And cuts off that haughty neck. But indeed the one is dead, but the other is now pregnant; And after a short time the whelps themselves, Having broken the maternal womb, came forth. May it not thus have punished the procreator.

Prudentius, *Hamartigenia*; Pliny, lib. X, cap. 42, *The male viper inserts its head into its mouth, which she bites off in the sweetness of pleasure.* And from more recent writers, Hadrianus Junius, *Emblem* 38.

Ibid., line 5. *But it is pregnant.* The second thing is concerning their birth; for they say that the sons, having burst the belly and eaten through the womb, break out, weighing [upon her], and avenging [themselves] for the first [act] with worse impiety. Phile, in Iambics: ^C

Horus, lib. II, cap. 60; Antigonus Carystius, *On wonderful things*, *Nor does the viper eat [its young] twice.* *For it eats its own belly, the whelps.* Aelian, lib. I of the *History of Animals*, cap. 24, and lib. XV, cap. 16, following the opinion of Theophrastus, says that the belly is not gnawed nor broken by the sons, but because it is narrow, it is pushed by the mass of the offspring, which, because it cannot struggle against it, is broken through, and he attempts to persuade [one] with the example of the sea-needle, which, because they do not have a capacious belly, are similarly affected by their fetuses. Pliny, ibid.: *On the third day it excludes the whelps within the uterus, then brings them forth one by one on individual days, about twenty in number. And so the others, impatient of the delay, break through her sides, having killed the parent.* Aristotle, however, *De histor. animalium*, lib. V, last chapter, thinks and narrates otherwise. And therefore this, just as the first [point] concerning the mating of vipers, is rejected by some as fabulous. *It brings forth whelps wrapped in membranes, which are broken on the third day. It happens, indeed, sometimes, that those which are still in the uterus break out because the membranes are eaten through. It brings them forth one by one on individual days, more than twenty.* Therefore it is most true that the viper survives its own birth.

Ibid., line 9. *But when the snake sheds its skin.* Concerning the serpent, its nature, and how it casts off its old age, Petrus Damianus, lib. II, epist. 18; Aelian, *On the History of Animals*, lib. IX, cap. 16, says that the serpent throws off the dimness of its eyes by having them rubbed with fennel; for eyes grow old just like the rest of the body, and so the eyes also have a limit of their perfection which they reach, which if they exceed, they lose the light and are rendered infirm. *When the snake sheds its old age, and this is done while spring is present, there the dimness of the eyes is also cast off, and the dullness of the sight, and that [lost] as the old age of the eyes. By putting fennel before it and rubbing each eye, then the fading of this condition happens.* *But it is dim-sighted, for having hibernated during the winter in a nook and darkness. And so, warming its sight, which has grown old from the cold of the animals, the fennel cleanses it and makes it clearer.* And Pliny, lib. VIII, cap. 27: *A snake, having its sight obscured by a winter hiding place, rubs itself against the fennel herb, and anoints and refreshes its eyes; but if its scales have become numbed, it scratches itself with juniper thorns.* And lib. X, cap. 23: *Serpents have made fennel famous by taste, as I said, by casting off old age, and refreshing the keenness of their eyes with its juice.* Aristotle, however, lib. V, *De histor. animalium*, cap. 17, seems to be of this opinion, if his words are correctly considered, namely that serpents are not blind: but because that skin or old age is first drawn away from the eyes while they are being shed, therefore to those who do not understand the matter, they seem to become blind. ^D *Nature, envious to more perfect animals, is seen to be yet lavish to itself in serpents. For if you cast even the slightest thing into the eyes of one, besides immense pains and tears which flow continuously, there is also danger for them of losing the light by remaining subject to disease. But if that should happen, they are nowhere able to return to that first keenness. This has been granted to serpents, whose eyes, if you have lacerated them, others will be born, and they will perform the same duty as the former.* I have noted from Aristotle, *De histor. animalium*, lib. II, cap. 17, Ev-

4, that snakes and spiders can live a long time without food, which is evident from those that shopkeepers keep. Epiphanius, in *Physiol.*, c. 13: "When it grows old, its eyes become dim, and if it wishes to rejuvenate itself, it fasts for forty days until its body becomes emaciated; then it finds a rock and creeps into a crevice; projecting itself forward through the hole, it squeezes through and casts off its old age, and having cast it off, it shows itself as a young one."

Ibid., line 10. *And it enters ...* Authors write that snakes shed their old skin: Aristotle, *De hist. anim.*, lib. VIII, c. 17; Aelian, l. IX, c. 16; Nicander, in *Theriaca*; Virgil, *Georg.* II and *Aeneid* II; Nonnus, *Dionysiaca* l. XLI; Simmias, in *Ala*; Theodorus, l. I *Therapeut.*; Pliny, l. VIII, c. 27: The snake, covered by the membrane of its body in its winter slumber, sheds that obstacle with the juice of fennel and emerges shiny. It sheds it first from the head, nor does it take longer than one day and night to turn it inside out, so that the membrane which had been inside is now outside; Horus, l. I, c. 2. Scaliger, in *Cardanus*, *exerc.* 189, n. 3, does not refrain in this matter, but merely refutes the cause adduced as to why snakes shed their skin—that it is because of dryness—by the example of the gecko, which is not dry and yet sheds its skin, and of dry trees, which do not change their bark; and of blister beetles, which are among the driest insects, and of flying bedbugs, which he himself confesses to have found to be fiery.

Ibid., line 13. *But when it is thirsty.* Regarding the viper that spits out its venom while engaged with a moray eel, the same is written by Oppian, *Halieut.* I; Philes in *Iambi*; Achilles Tatius, and others.

Ibid., line 19. *But the basilisk is poisonous.* Pliny, lib. XXIX, cap. 4, says that the basilisk kills not only by its smell but also by its mere sight, in which passage I would replace *smell* with *breath* (*afflatu*), according to the common opinion of authors who say that it spreads its venom by its breath, and in the words of Pliny himself, l. VIII, c. 21: "The power of the basilisk snake is the same. It creates a province in Cyrenaica, no more than twelve fingers in size, with a white spot on its head like a diadem. It puts all snakes to flight by its hiss, and it does not advance with a multi-folded movement like other snakes, but moves along high and upright in the middle. It kills shrubs not only by touch but also by its breath: it burns up grasses and breaks rocks; such is its power of evil." Galen, book *De Theriaca ad Pisonem*: "For the basilisk... It is a yellowish animal, and as they say, it has three protuberances on its head, because even when merely seen and heard hissing, it kills those who hear" ^A and if anything should touch the animal mentioned, it also dies immediately, and for this reason, its entire lineage is careful to keep near other beasts. The same is related by Horus, lib. I, cap. 1, and lib. II, cap. 61; Albertus Magnus, lib. XXV *De animalibus*, deceived by the diversity of names, creates two different species of it by doubling the basilisk; for he makes two heads, one of the basilisk and the other of the armene. Avicenna doubts whether the armene snake is the same as the basilisk or different. Nicolaus Leonicenus proves with many arguments and reasons that the armene and the basilisk are one and the same species and not two, and he refutes Albertus and Avicenna and the opinion of certain others who considered the armene to be the same as the catoblepas. They are deceived, I suspect, by the authority of Pliny, who, lib. VIII, cap. 21, says that just like the basilisk, the catoblepas also kills men and other animals by its look alone. Also, the mountain that divides the kingdom of Narsinga from Malabar nourishes many wild beasts, among which are winged snakes dwelling in trees, which they say kill those who approach more closely by their breath alone, or even by their gaze. Julius Scaliger in *Cardanus*, *exercit.* 249, reports that he had read that in Rome under Pope Leo X, ^B a basilisk was stabled in an archway near the church of St. Lucia, whose breath caused a great plague in Rome, and it was extinguished immediately by the prayers of the Pope. That the basilisk cannot be charmed is testified by the Holy Scriptures: "Behold, I," says the Lord, "will send among you serpents, basilisks, against which there is no charm, and they will bite you." * Moreover, some have believed that the basilisk destroys enchantments, and that other snakes already caught by them are loosened and freed. Note in passing the opinion of Augustinus Eugubinus, who in his *Cosmopoeia* judges that the serpent which deceived Eve was a basilisk, so that just as the devil who tempted Eve is believed to have been the prince of demons, so he used as his organ that serpent which is held to be the king of all snakes. The name itself indicates that this indeed is the basilisk, along with what Pliny and Solinus hand down regarding its incredible power to harm.

Ibid., line 22. *But they report.* Origen in the Greek *Catena* on Jeremiah, cap. 49: "For if you enclose poisonous snakes, you will see the weak being consumed by hunger by the stronger ones, until the one who is strongest of all, having been filled by the snakes he has eaten, becomes what is called the basilisk, ^D which, by its mere look, dries up a fruit-bearing tree." Epiphanius, *Adversus haereses*, lib. I, tom. II, haeres. 22, narrates that this story was handed down by the ancients: When many asps were put into one clay vessel and placed in the foundations of the four corners of every idol temple in Egypt, the one among those asps that was stronger attacked the others and devoured them, and when it remained alone and had nothing to feed itself with, it returned upon itself and by gradually gnawing away at its tail, it partially...

^A consumed its body, so that it no longer remained entire but half-mutilated; for this reason they called it the Aspidogorgon. Thus, according to Spartianus in his *Life of Antoninus Pius*, "There was seen in Arabia a crested snake larger than usual, which ate itself starting from the tail." I remember having often heard, and the common people affirm without any hesitation, that the basilisk is born from a cock's egg if it has been incubated by a toad or a frog. Indeed, this is certainly without doubt, and by experience we see daily that cocks which are exhausted by age, through weakness of strength, having neither productiveness nor any use, lay an egg of a rounded shape, yellowish and lurid in color. And while I was in Lucania, an egg was shown to me in which, besides these colors, a certain figure was seen protruding around the shell, and by touch it could be perfectly distinguished terminating in various twists and contorted coils in the shape of a serpent, and it was reported that that egg was born from a cock. *But I am not easily persuaded*, I would say, marvelling at their ignorance; for that it should be possible for a cock to lay an egg—those impatient of their being criticized bring forward many witnesses that it had even happened in other years, and that they were eyewitnesses to this, and worthy of belief. While I still resisted, and turned away as if a contemner of their faith, they pulled my garment and with force dragged and compelled me to go along with them. What was I to do? I went; we visited the house where the cock was, and they put down the egg from which they had taken it. The cock, which seemed somehow agitated, upon immediately recognizing its offspring, clucked, ran to it, as if kissing it with its beak, and sat upon it with wings spread. We departed. After the third day, I returned at their invitation: the cock was brooding on the egg, unmindful of food or drink; never during those three days had it left the box. Upon this, by a stick, the egg was pushed off and thrown into the furnace. Thus, cocks do lay [eggs], and they do brood. But whether a basilisk is generated from that incubation? I would say that some animal, and that a poisonous one, comes forth, since that putrid matter which lies in the egg has, when congealed, that which produces things of a similar nature, which I do not doubt can also be animated by the breath of the cock or of another living creature, as we see in those things which are born from putrid bodies. Wherefore the invention of the Egyptians is also worthy of praise, for they lie in wait for the eggs in those places, and when found, they crush them, lest any harmful thing derive its origin from them, or, as they themselves supposed, a basilisk. And since ibises delight in the hunting of these creatures and gorge themselves upon the serpents, there is no doubt that something pestilential will eventually be born from their eggs. Consult Theophylactus Simocatta, *Q. nat., quest. 14*, "For what reason do the eggs of these creatures most easily produce basilisk snakes?" Yet this Eustathius recounts another generation of the basilisk. Whatever the case may be, historians report that they are generated in Africa and make their nests in those torrid regions. Levinus Lemnius reports, in *De occultis naturae miraculis, lib. IV, cap. 12*, that in Saxony a certain kind of wild basilisk is seen here and there, with a pointed head, yellow in color, a span in length, of unusual thickness, with a spotted belly, and many white dots ^D curved, with the opening and gape of its mouth immense for the proportion of its body. Which is rather to be referred to the class of serpents than to basilisks, since they neither affect people with contagion by their breath, nor kill peasants by their aspect when attacking, unless we are willing to affirm that the cold of that region and a certain temperature of the air so restrain that poison and prevent it from being poured out. Which would not happen in scorched regions and torrents. Oppian, *lib. I, Halieutica*, mentions a fish by the name of basilisk.

*Ibid., line 28*. "The creature having a fierce [look]." Such is the power of this poison that it not only destroys by touch, but, by creeping, it pestilentially infects even things consumed by it, so that they too scatter poison and kill. Pliny, *lib. VIII, cap. 21*: "It was believed that once, from a horse killed by a spear, and by the power entering through it, not only the horseman was destroyed, but the horse as well." Aelian, *lib. II De hist. animalium, cap. 5*, "If a man holds a rod, and then that creature bites it, the master of the word dies." *Ibid., line 29*. "As even by [the aspect] alone." We said above that the basilisk brings death to men by the mere aspect of its eyes, with various histories reporting this. Francisco Vallés, *De sacra philosophia, cap. 68*, contends that these things are fabulous and that he cannot be brought to believe them. How inept such a statement is in a philosopher, there is no need to explain at length, since in physical matters one must act with reason and experience, not with obstinacy or sloth. Nor does it seem to be the sign of a wise man to reject at once as fabulous, while opposing a difficulty he does not understand, things that are said by others with one consent. But in order that this question may have some light, one must consider the cause that impelled Vallés to condemn these things as false. For when he was treating of fascination, and did not wish to admit the opinion of those who said that fascination occurs by the emission of visual rays, and that poisonous vapors are carried with them—which opinion did not seem common to him, but only that of the Platonists—lest he be compelled, although he does not himself touch upon it, to go into that opinion if he were to concede the poisonous aspect of the basilisk, he contends that the things which such great men have handed down about the basilisk are fabulous. Which, although it seems somehow contrary to the opinion of Aristotle, yet neither is the opinion of the Platonists confirmed, nor that of the Peripatetics refuted. For the basilisk does not infect the air by the emission of rays, by which, as by vehicles, poison and harm are carried by vision, but by the moisture of its eyes, in which the poison resides as in a subject, and through it [infects] the man; and the aspect is only required to direct that poison into the man whom it sees. For it ought to be certain to no one that this animal pours out its pestilential breath, not only which it breathes out by its mouth but also which it exhales by its whole body, around through the entire ambient air, and infects it. Yet, by a singular manner of moving the eyes, [it acts] to stir the air and make it more pernicious. But many things [are deemed] fabulous and fictional by Vallés,

^A even—O the profanity!—from the Holy Scriptures, which some judge to be pious, safe, and Christian. It is better to confess one's own ignorance than, when you do not know the things themselves, to deny the fruits of science and wisdom; and to twist what the Holy Spirit Himself has dictated into another meaning by denying them.

Ibid., line 30. *The beetle.* Thus also Horus, lib. 1, cap. 10; yet Suidas [cites] the dung of oxen. Pliny [cites] from Virgil, and Virgil [mentions] the dead bodies of bullocks, as wasps [come] from those of horses, and hornets, by a change of nature, from those of asses, and from some things others. See Epiphanius in *Ancoratus*. Likewise Clement, *Hypotyposes* VI, writes that men who are excessively given over to pleasures, and immersed and drunken, wallow like beetles in dung.

Ibid. *Circular shape.* Horus, lib. 1, cap. 10: He molds a spherical shape similar to the world, which, having rolled from the eastern parts to the west, he himself looks toward the east, so that he may represent the shape of the cosmos. The beetle is a creature without a female. He sows into the sphere which he rolls; and having done this for twenty-eight days, and warmed it, he then brings forth the young one from these. ^B *They say of him.* For there is no female. But the warriors of the Egyptians had a beetle engraved upon their rings, implying that the lawgiver intended that all who fight for their country should in every respect be males. Since the beetle also does not partake of the female nature.

Ibid. *And the Egyptians because of...* Beside Plutarch and Aelian, Eusebius, lib. 3, *De praeparatione evangelica*, reports the same from the book of Porphyry, *On Abstinence from Animal Food*, against whom Pisides inveighs most bitterly in *De mundi opificio*; Pliny, lib. XXX, cap. 11, [mentions] the beetle which rolls balls, because of which a great part of Egypt worships beetles among their gods, with a curious interpretation by Apion, by which he gathers that, for the sake of excusing the rites of his own nation, this animal has a similarity to the works of the sun. Horus furthermore gives another cause for this veneration, namely, that beetles are all males, with no female. See Rodiginus, lib. VIII, cap. 5.

Ibid., line 39. *And the ants...* Basil, *Hom.* 9, among other things: Horus, lib. 1, cap. 52, says that ants gather food for themselves in winter, and Aristotle, lib. IX, cap. 38, expressed their diligence in preparing food for themselves and collecting fruits. Pliny, lib. XI, cap. 30, from Aristotle: They store away the gnawed seeds, so that they may not sprout again from the earth. The larger ones they divide at the entrance. Having been moistened by rain, they bring them out and dry them. They labor even in the full of the moon. They cease at the time of the new moon. Now, what labor in their work! What assiduity! Aelian, lib. II, cap. 25; Georgius Pisides, *De mundi opificio*; Epiphanius, in *Physiologus*, cap. 56; the author of the epistle *ad praesidium*, Dio Chrysostom, in his political oration to the assembly. ^C The fable of Aphthonius the sophist on the assiduity of ants in their work is not unpleasant.

Ibid., line 43. *Concerning leeches.* Dioscorides, lib. VI, cap. 32, and Apsyrtus in the *Geoponic* collection, lib. XVI.

Ibid., line 54. *And of serpents and...* Theophylactus Simocatus in *Quaestiones naturales*, quaest. 14, concerning the ibis. "This bird likes to feed on something foul-smelling; and it rejoices especially in the hunting of venomous things, being a most gluttonous creature." But it is also peculiar to serpents, as is the basilisk, a deadly enemy. Wherefore the wings of hawks are hostile to serpents. It feeds on the flesh of serpents and scorpions, and delights in this prey. See Petrus Damianus, lib. II, cap. 18. But more on the ibis below.

Ibid. *To the cerastes...* Aelian, *De histor. animal.*, lib. X, cap. 14, "He is the most hateful of snakes and biting beasts. Truly, neither snake, nor scorpion, nor any other offspring of evil matter can escape him."

Ibid., line 57. *And this is...* Aelian, lib. II, *De hist. anim.*, cap. 42: "Seeing a dead man, the hawk casts earth upon the unburied one." And Solon does not command him to do this, as he commanded the Athenians to do; nor will he touch the body. But he remains without tasting even of drink if there is water flowing into a furrow; for he believes that a man who is laboring is being harmed if he [the hawk] draws off water from that man's need. But if more [men] were to irrigate, seeing the abundance of the stream, he partakes of it as if it were a kind of friendship, and drinks gladly. ^D

Col. 749, line 4. *But after the... of the world.* Just as there were, among those upon whom the light of the Gospel did not shine, varied and controversial opinions concerning the beginning and creation of this world—all of which wandered from the truth—so too, in the creation of man, they tormented themselves with various dissensions. For some asserted that human nature is eternal; others that men were first born in Attica; others in Arcadia; others in Egypt. Theodoret, *Graec. affect.*, lib. V; Justin, *Histor.*, lib. II, makes mention of the long-standing contention between the Scythians and the Egyptians concerning the antiquity of their race; and this...

^A argument having been set forth, he relates that the Egyptians were overcome by the ancient Scythians.

Col. 749, lin. 5. *Tῷ μὲν θερμῷ*. For it was necessary that man be constituted aptly and temperately, lest, being distracted by the urgent differences and contrarieties of the humors from this side and that, he should be most grievously offended; for thus, prompt and alert, he might apply himself to that for which he was born, and serve his intellect as a spectator of things above and of celestial things. All of which things have been denied to other living creatures: and this one is warmer, and therefore irascible, rapacious, proud; that one colder, and therefore sluggish, pestiferous, somnolent; and so we can philosophize concerning the others. Most excellently, therefore, were the extremes compressed by God; and man, formed on every side in a certain middle constitution of cold and hot, dry and moist, is found to be wonderfully prompt for necessary acts. This temperament of the humors, moreover, just as many other gifts bestowed upon him by God, he weakened through sin and the violation of the precept.

Ibid., lin. 7. *Ἔχοντα πάντα τὰ μέρη*. Therefore, not ineptly nor carelessly is man termed by many a "little world." Gregory Nazianzen, in *Christ's Nativity*: "The Artificer Word, wishing to demonstrate this, and to create a single living being from both—I mean from an invisible and a visible nature—creates man; taking from matter a body already pre-existing, and injecting life from Himself, in which the Word saw an intellectual soul and an image of God; He placed him upon the earth as a certain second world, great in small, another worshipping angel, a mixture, a spectator of the visible creation, a mystic of the intelligible, a king of those upon the earth, ruled from above, earthly and heavenly, temporal and immortal, visible and intelligible, of a medium between greatness and lowliness, the same both spirit and flesh—spirit for the sake of grace, flesh for the sake of exaltation: the former that he might remain and glorify the Benefactor, the latter that he might suffer, and being afflicted, might be reminded and instructed, being ambitious regarding his greatness, a living being here arranged, and elsewhere transferred, and the end of the mystery, by his inclination toward God, becoming divine." Nicetas, *Comment. in eumdem*: "And He placed man upon the earth, a great world in a small world, the sensible one. For the present world is small compared to man, for whose sake all things were made; for that for whose sake something is made is greater and more precious; and He established man as king of all things under the moon, that he might be master of the creatures made by Him. For the nature of man is a small world."

Gregory of Nyssa, however, *De opificio hominis*, cap. 16, seems to disapprove of the opinion of those who, wishing to extol man, by a comparison made with this world, named him a "little world"; ^B for he imagined it to be unbecoming to human excellence, since these things are common, and to the gnat and the mouse, since these also consist of the four elements, and are endowed with sense. What worthily, therefore, did they speak of man, while they were comparing man to the image and likeness of the world ^C compared to him? For is it not future that this revolving heaven, the earth liable to mutations, and finally all things contained by these, should perish with that very thing which they encompass? But Eustathius could reply: that man is neither soul alone, nor body alone, but that the two make one man, who, although he lives subject to death in body, is nevertheless immortal in soul, and in preeminence and excellence surpasses both heaven and earth, and the rest of the things that perish, and that is the greatest praise in man, which we know has certainly been granted to no one else, that he is called a little world. By which name he does not seem to be one part of the whole universe, but the whole, and to comprehend in himself alone all the perfections of all the parts, which we cannot affirm of others. For man alone is seen to be equal to heaven, and to earth, and to all living things, and for the perfections of all other things, his own single perfection, not inferior, responds. For just as heaven, both by the variety of the heavens, and by its perennial motion and ordered measure, and by its own influx both fosters and nourishes these earthly things, ungrudging to any, embracing all in its circuit; so also in man, the soul and mind, by its own faculties illuminating the parts of the body, impelling, directing, and compelling each to its own offices, bestows life, breath, motion, and a thousand other things. And what is more admirable, he is not lead to operations by a certain natural force as if he were something devoid of motion, sense, and reason, but having first understood the thing, he at length proposes to himself an end, toward which he directs his affairs, not compelled, but free, and commanding as a lord to his ministers just as he pleases. Which is granted to no one else, so far is it from the gnat and the mouse. To which proclamation and praise, what is more excellent? what more sublime?

Ibid., lin. 8. *Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ γῆ*. Without doubt, but by most certain reasons it is established that the earth is the middle of the whole world, and as it were the center. Pliny, lib. II, c. 69, proved this by many arguments. First, from the certain hours of the equinox; second, from dioptra, or the rules of instruments; third, from the solstitial rising. Cleomedes, lib. *Meteor.*, proves the same thing most abundantly from the differences of shadows. Aristotle, lib. *De cœlo*, cap. 14, confirms it by many; and lib. *De mundi fabrica ad Alexand.* Whence the poet Lucretius, lib. V:

And that the earth, at rest in the world’s middle region, Lives, embedded in the airy parts of the world. Therefore it is not a burden, nor does it press down the airs, Just as to each man his own limbs are of no weight.

There are many philosophers on this matter. However, it is to be noted here from this author, that the earth is surrounded by two elements, namely, air and water. For although it was necessary that waters be spread over the earth, yet this happened by divine providence, lest we humans, enveloped by the waters, might be suffocated by restricted breath, but rather that, with air diffused around, we might breathe.

Ibid., lin. 11. *Οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἄν*. Concerning the admirable structure of man, the ancient philosophers...

and Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Seleucia, Nemesius, Ambrose, [and] George Pisides, have written so much that it is in no way worth the effort to heap more onto the explanation of these statements. See also Galen, *De usu partium*, Theophilus, Meletius, Andreas Vesalius, and others. ^A

Ibid., lin. 24. *Τοῦ παραδείσου*. Many difficulties regarding the paradise of pleasure have been examined by the Fathers, and not only among the ancients, but also among more recent writers. Many have also published entire books written about this paradise, in which there is quite enough.

Ibid. *Ἐπίμοχθον αὐτῷ*. Delrius on Gen. ch. 3: In paradise, the earth would have supplied everything to the innocent Adam, who applied light labor with pleasure; to the sinner, and outside paradise, the same earth is declared to be a malignant nurse, yielding nothing unplowed, and only meagerly when plowed, and in certain places. And Basil of Seleucia, *Oration 2 on Adam*: "Cursed is the earth in your works. You have shown yourself unworthy of delight; you shall exist cursed by the toils of the earth, and having measured the time of your life with pains, you shall find a tomb as the successor to your life." ^B

Ibid., lin. 29. *Γνωρίσας οὖν τὴν*. Some of the Rabbis think that Eve’s girdle was loosened in paradise, and that Adam gave himself to the work of procreation as soon as Eve was brought to him. This is also hinted at in Book 1 of the Sibylline Oracles near the beginning. The Kabbalists very foolishly assert that noxious spirits called Lilith were begotten from the emission of Adam’s seed before he had consorted with his wife Eve, and that they indeed have a palpable body, subject to the senses, but [one that is] airy, subtle, and fleeting. They fix the life of these beings at a thousand years, [saying] that they vegetate and age like the rest of men, and that their species is propagated by nocturnal pollutions and the venereal dreams of men; since they are for the most part libidinous, they are delighted by menstrual fluxes, from which they derive strength, and therefore they lie with young men at night, tickle them, stir up seminal spirits, and relax the seminal vessels, so that they may refresh themselves with these pollutions. Who does not see these to be trifles? Others, indeed, whom some heretics of our own time follow, [say this happened] immediately after the sin. Others, of a truer opinion, [set it] after the expulsion from paradise. Thus Irenaeus, Book III, ch. 33; Procopius, ch. IV in Gen.; Epiphanius, Book III *Contra Haereses*; Justin, in his *Dialogue against Trypho*. For [they] think that as long as they were in paradise, they remained virgins. ^{C D}

Col. 749, lin. 23. *Τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ τῆς γῆς*. The Mahometans rave most foolishly in this matter, who say that God created the world from dust of all colors, and Adam from the slime of every kind of earth. For if they had been of one and the same color, all things would have been similar to each other, and one man could not have been distinguished from another. Ridiculous, too, is Mahomet’s doctrine concerning the making of man, in which he says that man was fashioned out of slime, a drop of a swallow or a leech, and chewing. The order which is observed regarding those who convert from the Saracens to the Christian faith is: "I anathematize the doctrine of Mahomet concerning the formation of man, in which he says that man was fashioned from dust and a drop, and leeches, and chewing." And Euthymius in the *Panoplia*: "He says that man was made from a leech." But how [could] the most honorable [come] from the most dishonorable, the rational from the irrational, and the desirable from the detestable? No less absurd to the Mahometans is Franciscus Georgius, who so explains [the passage] about the slime of the earth that he concludes that man is only a soul; for he says thus: "God formed man, dust from the earth, that is, he clothed him with an earthly garment, namely, an earthly body." For first God decreed to make man; afterwards he created him in heaven; thirdly, he formed his body like a garment. Which opinion is not without censure, [having been] condemned in the Council of Vienne. See more of this Franciscus’s trifles in Sixtus Senensis, *Bibliotheca Sancta*, Book 1. Moreover, Augustine, in his book *De Genesi ad litteram*, teaches that the body of man was not created before the creation of the soul, but together with the soul itself at the same time. Which he afterwards retracted in *Retractationum*, Book 1, ch. 10. Josephus, *Antiq. Jud.*, Book 1, ch. 2, says Adam was created from red, fermented slime, for such is the intact and true earth; and therefore Adam was called as if [he were] red: "But this man was called Adam; this signifies in the Hebrew language 'red', because he had been generated from red earth that had been kneaded. For such is the virgin and true earth." ^D

Ibid. *Καὶ δοὺς αὐτῷ*. So that by this soul alone, participating only in reason, he differs from all other creatures, whether they be inferior or superior [to him], and in this he recognizes his entire dignity and excellence to be situated. Should you take this from man, he will nowhere be superior even to brutes, or worms, or plants, or stones themselves. Rather, he would live the life of the most unhappy and wretched of all. There were not lacking, however, even some very eminent men who assigned the rational soul to the stars and other things, just as Philo Judaeus [did] in his books *De Somniis* and *De Opificio Mundi*; Origen, tom. 1, *Commentary on John*, and in his first *De Principiis*, ch. 7. Jerome, however, does not seem to have been of this opinion, *Commentary on Ecclesiastes*; Cajetan, on Psalm 135; Augustine, Book 11 *De Genesi ad litteram*, ch. 18, and *Enchiridion ad Laurentium*, ch. 58. Basil the Great, *Homily 3 in Hexaemeron*, and Damascenus, Book 11 *De Fide Orthodoxa*, ch. 6, refute it. What should be thought in this matter is best explained by St. Thomas, 1st part, q. 70, and recently, a man of singular piety and erudition, and a great friend of mine, Julius Caesar Lagalla, had written a booklet on this very matter; which I, because of its elegance and the highest skill in Peripatetic doctrine, while I was staying at Heidelberg, had published at the great desire of philosophers. Which, reader, is available if you delight in the springs of pure philosophy; if you desire to know our present age as not inferior in literature, nor darker in thought, nor more ignoble in methods and sciences than those more ancient ones.

^A Tertullian, *De veland. virgin.*, ch. 5; Jerome, *Contra Jovinianum*; Ambrose, *De instit. virginum*; Basil, *Epist. ad Letorium, De vera virginitate*; Chrysostom, *Hom. in Genes.* (Gen. iv, 1); Marius Victor, *In Genes.*, book 2; Augustine, *De Genes. ad litt.*, book 3; Delrius, *In Genes.*, ch. 4. Procopius thinks no differently. And in Cyril of Jerusalem’s *Catechesis* 12, some contend it should be corrected thus: "He approached the woman while she was still a virgin." For after the fall in paradise, then for the first time he knew Eve. And we learn from this passage of Eustathius that the first humans, so long as they were in paradise, were virgins. For their first union is commemorated after their exit from paradise. Rightly does Methodius say in his book *De fine mundi*: "Be it known that, having gone out when Adam and Eve emerged from paradise, they remained virgins. In the thirtieth year of their exit from paradise they brought forth Cain the firstborn and his sister Calmana. She bore two sons. In the thirtieth year of their exit from paradise they brought forth Cain the firstborn, and his sister Calmana. And after another thirty years she bore Abel together with his sister Lebora." Note is also taken on this matter of the opinion of Gregory of Nyssa, who in *De opific. hominis*, ch. 24, says: "That the generation of offspring, and the propagation of the human race, if the first parents had not sinned, would not have been through coitus, but they would have been multiplied by a certain most perfect mode of multiplication, just as the angels: for this generation, which occurs through copulation, was introduced through sin." The same is the sentiment of John Chrysostom, *Hom. in Genes.*; Procopius in *Genes.*, ch. 4; Damascene, *De fide orthod.*, book 4, ch. 25; Euthymius on *Psalm* 1; Augustine in *Genes.* What, however, is to be decided in this matter, St. Thomas explains in *Summa Theol.*, I, q. 98, art. 2, and many other doctors with him.

Col. 749, line 29. *Two sons she bore*. Not twins, as Calvin collects with rash audacity—led astray by the ambiguous reading of Methodius—in agreement with the rabbis, but by a different birth, one being Cain, and the other Abel: the words of Methodius are: [See the Greek text.] Who does not see that this contains a different sentiment from Calvin?

Ibid., line 30. *Cain*. The etymon and explanation of this name is found in the Holy Scriptures themselves: And he discovered Cain, saying, "I have possessed a man through God" (Gen. iv, 1). Wherefore Eusebius, in *Praepar. evang.*, book 11, ch. 4, does not interpret it correctly, that Cain is envy, because in fact Cain, envious on account of his brother’s sacrifice, slew him.

Ibid. *And Cain was*. John Zonaras, *Annalium* vol. 1: "And Abel was a shepherd of the flock, and concerned himself with virtue, whereas Cain tilled the ground, being most wicked." Here note that the eating of meat was not permitted before the flood, *Gen.* ch. 9. And that the human race before the flood could have been sustained by vegetables and herbs with the greatest of ease could be maintained from the words of Julian the Apostate, which Suidas reports in *Herodotus* ^B to be approved. Justin Martyr reclines against this in *Orthodoxos* q. 119, in which he concedes the use of fruits and flesh to Abel and Cain.

Ibid., line 32. *Brought forth Abel*. That Abel was the first to offer sacrifice to God is the common opinion of almost everyone. The Jews attribute this to Adam, and that he was the first to sacrifice an ox, and that he taught the rite to his sons. Gilbert Genebrard, *Chronol.* book 1.

Ibid., line 33. *And his sacrifice*. This means that fire sent down from the heavens consumed his oblation, but left Cain’s intact. So Procopius, Jerome; Cyril in *Genes.* ch. 4 and *Glaphyr. in Genes.* book 1; Faustus of Riez, *De lib. arbit.*, book 2, ch. 6, and others: which is also consonant with divine custom. *Lev.* ix, 24; *Jud.* vi, 21; *II Paralip.* vii; *III Reg.* xviii and xxxiii; *I Machab.* Luther and Calvin, most bitter enemies of the truth and calumniators of the Sacred Scriptures, deny that this was confirmed by the authority of so many Fathers, and judge it to be Jewish fables, most foolishly. ^C

Ibid. *But Cain first*. A truly very true and most efficacious cause for explaining why God looked upon the sacrifice of Abel rather than that of Cain; Josephus offers another, but, as it appears, of little strength and poorly fashioned by him, namely that the sacrifice of Abel consisted of things spontaneously generated by nature, whereas that of Cain, a greedy and industrious man, he had extorted by a certain force from nature. Basil of Seleucia in his oration on Cain and Abel hits the mark: Cyril of Alexandria, *Glaphyr. in Genes.*, book 1: "Come, therefore, for the holy and most wise Abel [offered] the choice things of the flock and the select, hidden away; for he brought, he says, from the firstlings of the sheep and from their fat, that is, the excelling and choice things; and not having been ignorant of the mode of priestly ministry, he presented the fat. Cain, however, not so, but very carelessly; for he bestowed upon his own pleasures those things that were most especially prominent among the ripe fruits; yet he grieved God, who is over all, with second-rate things." *Being angered at this*. ^D

Ibid., line 56. Methodius of Patara writes that the slaying of Abel occurred in the two-hundredth year of Adam's life, and that the mourning of Adam and Eve was drawn out for one hundred years. At the two-hundredth...

year of Adam's life, Cain slew his brother Abel. And Adam and Eve performed the lamentation over him for 100 years. An inconsolable mourning. ^A And he who wandered much. And he who envied the preferment slew him and became accursed to God, sentenced to groan and to tremble. Having been cast out from the face of God, he dwelt in the land of Naid, where he also fathered children. From there, having been driven from his first habitation, Cain ran across much land and pitched his tents, where it seemed fair to his eyes. Having traversed much land, he established himself with his wife, Cain, in the place so called Naid, and there he made his dwelling, where children were also born. And all unspeakable. Nor did he receive the punishment for the sake of correction, but for the increase of wickedness, providing every pleasure to his body, even if he had to obtain this with the abuse of those around him; and increasing his household with a wealth of goods from plunder and violence, and encouraging those he met toward pleasure and robbery, he was a teacher to them of wicked practices. ^B And he was the first to conceive of walled cities. When the human race had become numerous, he would attack travelers, attempt robberies, plunder, and stain his hands with murders. In the five-hundredth year of the first millennium, the sons of Cain began to lay with the wives of their brothers. When Adam learned of these things, he was grieved exceedingly. In the six-hundredth year of the first millennium, their wives were seized by the goad of sordid love and turned to madness, and they used their own husbands as if they were women, and it became truly an overt shame to those who saw it. In the eight-hundredth year of Adam's life, the hatred of impurity was spread in the land by the sons of the fratricide Cain.

On Cain

^A sent him born of a supernal mother, whom they claim to have received from the Father above, so that from this a divine seed might be born as of the sons of God. Concerning their vain opinion, see St. Augustine, *De haeresibus*, to Quodvultdeus. Delrio, however, at the end of chapter IV of Genesis, rejects this opinion, though it is confirmed by the testimonies of such great Fathers. The Lord, he says, in Hebrew is a tetragrammaton, which is always given only to God: wherefore it is never attributed to Enoch or his sons; thus, those otherwise grave writers—Cyril, Theodoret, Emisenus, and Suidas—must not be heard (note the religious man’s reverence for the holy Fathers), who explain that then, on account of his signal piety, the name of "sons of God" was given to Enoch and his children: the Hebrew context resists them. They were deceived by failing to distinguish between *Elohim*, which is in chapter VI, 1, and the ineffable name that is placed here.

^B 45. And the boundaries of the land. "He was the first to set boundaries of land, and he built a city, and fortified it with walls, having compelled his own kin to gather together into one place, and he called this city Enos, after Enos his eldest son." Cain, too, had a son named Enoch, and he built a city which he named after his son Enoch. From then on began the custom of building cities, and this before the flood, not as Homer falsely says: "For not yet had a city of mortal men been built." But Adam abode. And in the thirtieth year after their departure from Paradise, they begot Cain the firstborn and his sister Calmana. And after another thirty years, he begot Abel with his sister Lembera.

This one, indeed, is the first. For the men of that time called Seth "God," because he discovered Hebrew letters, the names of the stars, and in addition to these, they admired his great piety, insomuch that he was the first to be invoked and named as God. God bestowed this righteous Seth upon them. He who set names to the heavenly stars. Enoch was the first who learned letters and wrote the signs of the heavens, the solstices, and the months. In these he is preeminent.

Indeed, he had other children, both many others and Seth. But it would be a long task to speak of the others; I shall attempt to recount only the things of those from Seth. For he was nurtured, and having come to maturity, being already able to discern what is good, he cultivated virtue, and having himself become the best, he left his descendants behind as his imitators. And they, all having been born good, and having inhabited the land itself in peace, lived happily, with nothing grievous befalling them until the end. Even before their coming to knowledge, before they were corrupted—having predestined to be extinguished...

^C 52. He was the first. Suidas: Manasses in the *Annals*: Alexander Polyhistor in Eusebius, *Preparatio Evangelica*, the last chapter, and Josephus, *Antiq.*, book I, say that Abraham first revealed the art of astrology to the Egyptians, and that it then flowed from the Chaldeans into Greece; of whom later. Josephus, however, attributes this invention to Seth. Truly, what wonder is it that the invention of this divine art should be ascribed to profane men by profane men? Pliny, book VII, chapter 56, says Astrology [was invented by] Atlas, son of Libya, as others say by the Egyptians, and others by the Assyrians. And therefore they handed down that he carried the sky on his shoulders. Diodorus attributes the beginning to the Egyptians, Servius in Virgil’s *Eclogue* to Prometheus, as the discoverer of this sidereal science. *Catena Graeca* on Exodus: Enoch first learned letters and wrote the signs of the heavens, the solstices, and the months.

^D 55. Intending to die. He conceived of the wisdom regarding the heavens and their ornamentation. And so that these discoveries might not escape men, nor that, before coming into knowledge, they should perish, since Adam had predicted that there would be a total destruction—one by the force of fire, the other by the violence and multitude of water—they made two pillars, one of brick, the other of stone, and inscribed their discoveries on both, so that if the brick one should be destroyed by a rainstorm, the stone one remaining might provide knowledge of the written things to men, and also reveal that a brick one had been erected by them. It remains to this day in the Siriad. Josephus, *Antiq.*, lib. 1, cap. 5: Nearly the same has Zonaras, *Annal.*, tom. I. It is manifest that these columns were erected by Seth or even his grandsons while Adam was still alive. Marianus Scotus reports them to have been constructed not by Adam but by Abraham.

Chronograph. lib. 1, he calls them sometimes tablets, sometimes columns; in the end he writes that they were tablets, one of bronze against the inundations of water, the other of brick against the conflagrations of fire; in the former of which they inscribed the liberal arts, especially the doctrine concerning God, and mathematics; in the latter, the promise concerning the seed, that is, Christ, made to Adam; but the authors from whom Genebrard has these things he does not commend, and I think there are not many who survive, and if there were any, they would not speak probable things, nor is it safe in history; and first, one must necessarily affirm against Genebrard, that in those tablets or columns different and various things were not inscribed, but the same things in one as in the other. For let us grant that they wrote even of God, and mathematics, and of the promise of the seed—which would still be difficult to prove—in the bronze one: yet it must necessarily be confessed that they inscribed these same things in the brick one, and not different ones. They knew the world would collapse, being in doubt whether it would be submerged by waters or conflagrated by fires; for that reason, to preserve doctrine and to remedy either misfortune, they construct these two columns, one of bronze, or as our author pleases, and more respectable writers think, of stone, the other of baked bricks. For thus they would resist waters with bronze or stone, and fire with brick, and thus entrust the doctrine to posterity. What good, therefore, would it have done them if they had written different things? How, if fire were ignited, would they have conserved what was in the stone, and if waters were poured out, what was in the bricks? Genebrard will perhaps say that they erected the columns not because they were doubtful, but certain of the manner and method of the consummation of the world. Therefore, that different material of the columns was in vain; and one, which could survive the destruction of the world unharmed, would have been sufficient; but because they were uncertain, they prepared this or that material in an uncertain manner, and for a reasoned destruction. Pliny, lib. VII, cap. 56, has these things concerning these columns from Epigenes: "Contrariwise, Epigenes records that among the Babylonians there are 720 years of observations of the stars inscribed on baked bricks," a grave author in the first place: Berosus and Critodemus at the minimum 480 years. From which appears the eternal use of letters.

Col. 752, line 11. *And Cain begat*. Many have thought little of this progeny of Cain, since it was totally destroyed in the inundation of the waters, and therefore in narrating it our Eustathius has followed the divine Scriptures, which do not proceed in any other manner than by a small mutation of the formula of names.

Ibid., line 13. *And this Lamech*. Genebrard says that those who accept Lamech as the son of Mathusala err; yet he brings forward no reason why he says this. Therefore, all the greatest Fathers err, as does Eustathius along with them, Theophilus *ad Autolycum* lib. II: "To Enoch was born a son named Gaidad, who begat him who is called Meel, and Meel [begat] Mathusala, and Mathusala [begat] Lamech. And Lamech took to himself two wives." Augustine erred, lib. XV *De civitate Dei*, cap. 20: The first of these kings could have been Cain himself, the second his son Enoch, in whose name where he might reign, the city was founded. The third Gaidad, whom Enoch begat: the fourth Maniel, whom Gaidad begat: the fifth Mathusael, whom Maniel begat: the sixth Lamech, whom Mathusael begat, who is the seventh from Adam through Cain. The Vulgate edition has this genealogy, although with a changed name, Gen. IV. Moreover, to Enoch himself was born Irad, but Irad begat Mehviael, Mehviael begat Mathusael, but Mathusael begat Lamech; but Lamech took, etc. The Septuagint reads Μαθουσάλα. The Greek Catena on Genesis acknowledges this very slight wandering of the copyist: "Among the Seventy it stands *Mathusala*. But this is a scribal error. For Mathusala is from the established genealogy of Seth. The one from Cain is called *Mathusala*, as he has been separated with the rest."

Ibid. *And Lamech two wives*. Theophilus *ad Autolycum*, lib. II: "But Lamech took to himself two wives, whose names were Ada and Sella. Thence there was a beginning of polygamy, but also of music." The rabbis trifle, who wish that men were killed by him first, and afterwards wives were taken. Lamech was perhaps the first and last before the deluge who dared polygamy, and divided one flesh into two wives, says Jerome, lib. I *Contra Jovinianum*; and Tertullian, lib. *De exhort. cast.*, cap. 5: "The first made three into one flesh." Lamech therefore sinned, not because he had more wives, but because he had more than one at the same time. Read Delrio, cap. IV *Gen.*, for the best critique of Tertullian's error *De monogamia*. Genebrard reports from the rabbis that Lamech left an example of hunting to posterity, discovered and fashioned arms by which slaughters were committed. Josephus, lib. I *Antiq.*, cap. 5, writes that this man, skilled in sacred matters, had predicted that he would suffer punishments for the fraternal slaughter committed by Cain, surely by the flood. The same for Genebrard.

Ibid., line 15. *From Ada*. Not the institutor or author of the pastoral art himself: but he restored it, as if defunct by the death of Abel and, as it were, dormant, by his own study and ingenuity, and he himself tended the flock. He also added the use of tabernacles. Theophilus *ad Autol.*, lib. II: "And Abel became a man who was a keeper of sheep in a tent."

Ibid., line 16. *And Iobad*. That he discovered the use of the psaltery and cithara, besides the sacred Scriptures, authors teach; in which, however, they do not agree; but our Eustathius, in narrating it, followed the divine Scriptures, which do not proceed in any other manner than by a small mutation of the formula of names. Josephus, Theophilus in the same place: "But Iobad is the one who demonstrated the psaltery and cithara." Concerning these, Methodius: "In the three hundred and fortieth year of the second millennium, nefarious men arose, wicked and lawless, full of impiety, from the sons of Cain, Iobel and Thoucidel, the children of Lamech the blind, who killed Cain; over whom the devil, having held sway, turned them to every kind of music having been fashioned." Their use, just as that of others, the more recent nations have ascribed to their own, or to others related to themselves. For some refer this discovery to Amphion, others to Orpheus, some to Apollo, and others to others. Theophilus in the same place: "But indeed some also trifled that Apollo was the inventor of music; others, Orpheus, from the sweetness of the birds."

"≫ ^A And their discourse is shown to be empty and vain. For after many ages they were born after the flood. There is more on these matters in Polydorus Virgilius, *De inventione rerum*. They are said, however, to have invented their own music just as the sons of Seth [did] those things which they had discovered concerning the movements of the stars and the sciences, having carved them on pillars.

Col. 752, line 17. *And from Selam.* Sculpture was the author; he invented the craft of the smith, dug up metals, and revealed their use. Theophilus in the same place: [He] became a hammersmith, a worker in bronze and iron. Having found the opportunity for this art, men—as Philo and Josephus have handed down—first gave themselves to the worship of carved images and idols. Secondly, they became the authors of sharpening iron and raw copper into instruments of war and of fashioning them; both are most pernicious to human nature.

Ibid., line 19. *And Adam having lived.* The Greek edition of the Septuagint Interpreters does not agree with the Hebrew of the Jews in enumerating the years of the authors of the human race; many have discussed their discrepancy. See among Sixtus Senensis, Pererius, and others. The Greeks attribute one hundred years more than the Hebrews, except for the years of Lamech, where they differ by only six years, and those of Noah, in which they agree perfectly at the five hundred sixtieth. Concerning the burial of Adam, the tradition of the Hebrews is constant, that Adam died and was buried in the land of Israel near the field of Damascus, for there he had been created, and there he lived out his life. Others, from Joshua iv, say he was buried in Hebron. Our opinion, however, is [that he was buried] on Mount Golgotha, on which the Lord was crucified. Origen, tract. 35 on Mark; Epiphanius at the end of *Panarion*; Athanasius, *On the Passion of the Lord*; Theophylact on Matt. xxvii; Euthymius in the same place; Cyprian in the sermon *On the Resurrection*; Ambrose, book v, ep. 49, and elsewhere.

Ibid., line 21. *And Enos, a son.* Having embraced the footsteps of his father's piety, with a readier mind he worshipped God—to whom he referred all his own things—publicly, and not in the shadows of darkness, retaining the ancestral religion. Vatablus treats this more broadly in his commentary on this place. Before Enos, Adam, Abel, and Seth worshipped God, and with offered sacrifices rendered Him propitious to themselves. Indeed, Cyril, in *Against Julian*, book 1, writes that men from Adam down to Shem, the son of Noah, worshipped God the Creator, nor was anyone rebuked because he offered before the flood to strange gods or demons. But by a more solemn worship we understand this passage. And while the rest were occupied with the invention of the arts and with these earthly affairs, preparing profit and conveniences, Enos himself, having spurned all these, worshipped God alone, placing Him before the others, having set his own fortunes in Him. Those men devised things useful for this life; these men [devised things] for the future. Wherefore these were the sons of God, those the sons of men. Eusebius of Emesa, *Catena on Genesis*: "In the Hebrew it does not say so, but thus: 'He hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God,' that is, to be called a Son of God and God. For those from ^B of Seth were made righteous, whence the Scripture following after these things says: 'The sons of God saw the daughters of men,' that is, the righteous men. For there was no intermingling of the sons of Seth with those from Cain."

Ibid., line 27. *And Jared, a son.* Zonaras, *Annal.*, vol. I: "Enoch pleased the Lord, and was taken away, and was not found, having lived three hundred and sixty-five years." First, note here that Jerome was marked as if having lapsed in memory by Pererius in *Genesis*, book VII (a thing which, as he himself says, often happens to great men, either through excessive confidence in their memory, or because they are intently occupied with study and care in another matter); for that which Scripture hands down in this place concerning Enoch, who was the seventh from Adam, he attributes to Enos the son of Seth, the grandson of Adam. For thus he writes, lib. 1 *Against Jovinian*: "I do not think Enoch was translated because he had a wife, but because he was the first to invoke God and to believe in the Savior." But Moses hands down in *Genesis*, chap. iv, that the very first of all who began to call upon the name of the Lord was not Enoch, but Enos. Second: Procopius of Gaza, from the words of Scripture, thinks that Enoch had previously been wicked and flagitious, but that afterward, through worthy and perfect repentance of his crimes, he not only amended his life, but so pleased God that he deserved to be transferred in a state of life exempt from death. Third: Abenezra has contended with others that Enoch died, and that the place of Scripture should be so understood, but he tries to demonstrate this rashly. They are mere prodigies and old wives' fables that heretics have handed down concerning the death of Enoch. That Enoch did not die by a violent separation of the soul from the body, but in another new way, namely, having only cast off his corruptible nature and been absolved from the miseries of this life by a certain peaceful migration from this world. And they add that they speak of such a one, as would have been the transition in the state of innocence, and as will be that of those whom the final day will find still surviving; and so Enoch was translated into the heavenly fatherland, not indeed to be a participant in heavenly glory there, but only absolved from the miseries of the age until Christ should ascend into heaven. Martin Borrhaeus, a man of the same batch, confesses that Enoch truly died ^D regarding the body in the manner of others, but that his soul was translated into heaven on account of the excellence of his faith, and therefore, it is said, he did not die. Yet the most ancient tradition of the Church, and the persuasion of all Christians, and the unanimous opinion of the theologians among the Fathers, feel the contrary. Clement of Rome, *Constit. apost.*, book v, cap. 6; Irenaeus, book iv, cap. 30; Tertullian, book *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, cap. 58; Cyprian, book *On Zion and Sinai*; Epiphanius in the *Ancoratus*; Nemesius, book *On the Nature of Man*, cap. 4; Jerome, book 1 *Against Pelagius*; Augustine, book xv *On the City of God*, cap. 29; Chrysostom, homily 31 on Genesis and on chapter xi to the Hebrews; Ephrem the Theopolitan patriarch, in Photius, *Bibliotheca*, cod. 228. Nor

^A does the statement that he died with those in the flood imply that he lived for nine hundred and forty-nine years. Nor are we persuaded by Africanus, who adds the same twenty years and says nine hundred and fifty-nine for Methuselah, instead of nine hundred and sixty-nine. It seems better, therefore, to follow the sacred books held throughout the whole world and say nine hundred and sixty-nine years for Methuselah; but if he survived the flood by fifteen years, perhaps God preserved him as he did Enoch, in ways and places known to Him.

Ibid., lin. 52. *To this Lamech.* There was a certain righteous man, Noah, among the descendants of Seth, the ninth from the seed of Adam the first-formed, who, pursuing the righteousness of the statutes, and abhorring wickedness from his soul and fleeing from the vile and the ungodly, strove to reclaim them. Since he could not persuade them to turn from their evil ways, he departed from the land where he first grew; and becoming a stranger in foreign borders, he was ordained to build the praised ark, and to enclose within it every land-animal, that they might serve as seed and a brand for the race.

In which [lines] the hallucination of Manasses is detected. For he establishes Noah as the ninth from Adam, against the protest of all the Scriptures and writers of chronicles. Therefore, I judge it must be corrected. Nor is he to be listened to when he says that Noah enclosed every land and aquatic animal in the ark, in order to preserve the seed of animals therefrom. For the use of the ark was necessary for land animals, not aquatic ones. You have an excellent encomium of Noah in Chrysostom, homily on Genesis; the Sibylline Oracles, book I; Basil of Seleucia, orations on Noah, and others.

Ibid., lin. 55. *Even unto the seventh generation.* Josephus has the same in *Antiquities* I, cap. 4; Zonaras, *Annals* I. Nor does Theodoret disagree in *Questions on Genesis* 47; Methodius says: ^D But those things which are here handed down by Methodius, many consider to be false and falsely attributed to him, the error being sufficiently explored and confirmed by chronology. Incests, adulteries, crimes, impieties, and other things of those men, the Book of Enoch treats at length. For unto the seventh generation the life of Adam was prolonged, and he compelled all to the worship of God, instructing them by word and deed. For it is right to believe that he [cared] not only for his own ^B offspring, twenty-three years, lived nine hundred and sixty-nine years, which no one has reckoned to have been joined with the divine, whence they have not even recorded his death. Of Methodius of Patara, and from the book-collector Leo the Philosopher, "But our good and philanthropic God does not abandon the world even in that time without a preacher. He shall send three men, two from the cloud and another from the earth; these are Enoch, Elijah, and John the Theologian, saying: 'He is a deceiver; let no one believe him.' And he kills them in a slaughter of the sword, and their bodies shall fall upon the earth for three days and a half; and the spirit of life shall enter into them, and they shall ascend into heaven in the sight of all, crying out to God. And the Most High shall shorten those days, so that all that host of the saints may not perish, and they who love God shall be saved."

But his son: *Where was he saved in the flood?* This does not seem to be correct. For according to this account, the sacred books of Genesis in all the Churches of God would be corrupted, which record nine hundred and sixty-nine years for Methuselah. And Jared would also be longer-lived... [at the] seven hundred and ninety-ninth year of Jared’s life, that is, of the second millennium, the wicked and destructive devil moved to touch the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain, and having thrust them out, he cast the giants to the ruin of sin. And the Lord God was angered with fury. And at the end of the second millennium the flood of waters occurred, and all the creation and formation was destroyed. 10. *Concerning the Watchers.*

^A of one thousand eight hundred cubits, and a breadth of three hundred, and a height of one hundred and eighty; a truly vast mass, if you reduce it to standard or common cubits: that is, two thousand seven hundred feet in length, four hundred and fifty in breadth, and two hundred and seventy in height. Delrio follows this opinion along with Isidorus Clarius, because he claims that Origen possessed what he was about to deliver regarding the ark from the tradition of the ancients, and because it did not displease Augustine in *Quaestiones in Genesim*, book 1, and elsewhere, who calls that objection regarding the magnitude of the ark a most inept calumny, and resolves it by the comparison of major cities. It also did not displease Cajetan; and to Delrio it seems ridiculous to prefer that animals should have been packed into a tight space there so that they could not comfortably move or lie down, rather than to live loosely and healthily.

Ibid., line 48. *Ἐπενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ.* The greatest inundation of those waters, and the universal cataclysm, are mentioned by the most ancient writers, Abydenus, Berosus, and others, whom Eusebius reviews in *De praeparatione evangelica*, book IX, and in the first part of his *Chronicon*. You have an elegant description of it in Manasses in his *Annales*, and in Basil of Seleucia. Albumasar calculates two thousand two hundred and twenty-eight full years from the beginning of the world until the flood. Alliacensis, in his book *De concordia astrologiae et historiae*, calculates that two thousand two hundred and forty-eight years had passed from Adam to the flood, and he strives to prove this by astrological reasons, having proposed the theme of the nativity of the world itself. John Pico refutes him in *Astrologia*, book V. Concerning these things, see more among the chronographers. Augustine, in *De civitate Dei*, book XVIII, chapter 8, writes that there was no knowledge or mention of this flood among either the Greeks or the Latins. And he brings forward Varro as a witness, who wrote in his monuments of the literature of ancient memory that nothing is found older than the flood of Ogyges, which happened many centuries after the Noetic one. Yet, Pererius, in *In Genesim*, book XII, says that this cannot be denied without obstinacy from the testimony of Josephus in *Antiquitates*, book 1, chapter 4: "Indeed, all the writers of barbaric history have mentioned this flood and the ark, and among them Berosus the Chaldean, who narrates about this flood thus, almost:"

^B Ibid., line 41. *Καὶ προστάττει αὐτῷ.* Therefore, the ark was constructed by the warning and command of God. The pseudo-Berosus Annianus is therefore babbling when he says that Noah, most skilled in astrology, had foreseen the flood from the inspection and observation of the stars, and Annius is no more reliable: we have written and proven elsewhere that these two things simultaneously suggest that the inundation of the earth proceeded from natural causes, which studious men have recorded in monuments, and at the same time were ordained from eternity by divine providence, so that men might perish at the time most especially appointed. For although Avicenna and some other astronomers argue that such an effusion of waters could come to pass by the efficacy of natural causes and their power; and Seneca, in *Naturales quaestiones*, book III, says that such a flood would some day happen, and that it would come to pass by the law of the world and spontaneously, no differently than winter or summer. However, the contrary opinion is truer and more probable. Aristotle established this in *Meteorologica*, book 1, chapter 14, and others. Consult Damascene, *De fide orthodoxa*, book 1, chapter 3.

Ibid., line 42. *Κατασκευάσαι κιβωτόν.* Philo, towards the end of the second book of *Vita Moysis*; Josephus, *Antiquitates*, book 1, c. 4. In assigning or establishing its parts, the doctors vary. The opinion of Origen in *Homilia 2* is attacked today—he who thought they were geometric cubits, of which each contains six common ones; ^C "It is said, furthermore, that a part of this vessel still survives in Armenia at the mountain of the Gordyaeans, and that some people take away bitumen from there to carry with them, which the people of that place are accustomed to use in place of an amulet." Hieronymus the Egyptian, who wrote the antiquities of the Phoenicians, mentions these, as do Mnaseas and many others. Indeed, Nicolaus of Damascus, in book XCVI, tells of these matters in these words: "There is above the region of the Minyans a great mountain in Armenia, named Baris, on which they say many fugitives were saved at the time of the flood. And that a certain one remained on its summit in the ark, and the remains of its wood lasted for a long time, which perhaps was the one about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews also writes." And Eusebius, in *De praeparatione evangelica*, book IX, who [writes] with the words of Josephus from Abydenus...

...the historian adds some things, and of Cyril of Alexandria, who to prove this refers to the testimony of Alexander Polyhistor. Nor does Plato seem to have been ignorant of this, from those things which he has in the ^A *Timaeus*, that before particular deluges there was celebrated among the Greeks in antiquity a certain great inundation of waters and a devastation of the earth. To this also pertains what Pomponius Mela, lib. 1, c. 21; and Pliny, lib. v, c. 13, and Solinus, cap. 37, state, that Joppa, a maritime city of Judea, is proclaimed to be the oldest of all the cities of the earth and is believed to have been before the deluge. Which, moreover, regarding the deluge of Deucalion, Plutarch, in his book *De solertia animalium*, relates concerning the dove, pertains to the Noetic deluge. Hither also look those things which Ovid writes concerning the deluge in book 1 of the *Metamorphoses*. But Pererius, who, after the opinion of Augustine regarding the knowledge of the deluge was set forth, asserted that it could not be denied without contumacy, since however Augustine had denied it, lest he might appear to affix the note of contumacy or ignorance or forgetfulness of history to so great a man, he excuses him and says that Augustine did not precisely say that the deluge of Noah was known to no historians, but only that it was unknown to the Greek and Roman historians, saying nothing of the barbarian histories; and that this is true, since those whom Pererius himself cited were certainly barbarians and writers of barbarian matters. This explanation, however, is pious, who would deny it? While he defends Augustine from ignorance, and he does not lack his own praise. Yet it seems to me to be alien to all humanity to accuse someone severely, whom he later cannot defend with cold and false arguments. For, to tell the truth, who ever said that Alexander Polyhistor, and Plutarch, and Plato, and Ovid, and Pliny, and Solinus, and Mela were barbarians, and that they were writers of barbarian matters? I never recall having read it; nor do I think it has ever been recorded in letters that the Greeks and Romans were barbarians. If they are barbarians, who in the whole world will defend himself as immune from this mark? Therefore, so that Augustine, who is falsely accused, may be defended, we shall all be barbarians, both Romans and Greeks. Against justice and right, Augustine is accused as if contumacious, and against justice and right, both the Romans and the Greeks are judged to be barbarians. Truly, one would say either that we are blind in the reading of the authors who spoke about the deluge, or that Augustine explained it otherwise than it was, who thinks contrary and has fallen, out of either ignorance or forgetfulness of history and antiquity. By no means. For Augustine says that neither Greek nor Latin history knew it, which is true and consonant with reason and historical truth; for never has history, whether Greek or Latin, had it from its own authors through public records or human tradition that there was a Noetic deluge. Fresh and youthful is the history of the Greeks and ^B Latins; most ancient is the Noetic deluge, so that its memory escapes all tradition. The history of the Hebrews through the records of Sacred Scripture had knowledge of it, yet in no way is it a Greek or Latin history. But if you also [insist on] the sciences, and it will be necessary to affirm all things both Greek and Latin, since Greek and Latin authors treat of them in Greek and Latin; nor does such a mode of elocution make such a science or art. Since we shall contend that the Roman history of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and of Dio Cassius, and of others, is Greek, since it was expressed in the Greek language. Therefore the subject matter, not the elocution, nor the author himself, makes a history of this nation rather than another. Many things about God, about the creation of the world, about divine providence, about the Christian religion, and about six hundred other things, the Platonic philosophers and profane historians have set forth in their commentaries, which is so manifest that it does not need proof: therefore we shall not affirm that they were Greek philosophy and Greek history, and that those writers were of Greek philosophy or history; it is one thing entirely to speak with another's mouth, another to speak with one's own. Most excellently, therefore, did Augustine affirm that the deluge was not known to either Greek or Latin history, because although they remembered it, they did not draw it from the treasuries of Greek and Latin historians, but from the books of outsiders; since, as the same Augustine says regarding Varro, Latin history had nothing more ancient than the deluge of Ogyges. We could likewise doubt whether Latin history and Roman history are the same. For Augustine says, "That the history of the nations knows neither Greek nor Latin." But Pererius, while he repeats his words, or at least his opinion, yet he only said it was unknown in Greek and Roman histories, having said nothing of barbarian histories. See how from Latin history, Roman was made. But let us proceed to the rest that is not at all alien to our purpose.

Col. 752, lin. 48. Ἐκαλύφθη τὰ ὑψηλά.

Og remained of the remnant of the giants." And the Talmudists are shown to be false, who say that the deluge did not touch Mount Sion, on this argument alone, that the seed of the giants was found after the deluge in said place. Plato in the *Timaeus*, and Diodorus Siculus in the *Bibliotheca*, book VI, ^B seem to abhor this opinion, but they agree in the matter and material itself, although in other things they are falsely concordant. For they report that at the time of the deluge, the Magi and some other peoples of Egypt took refuge on the ridges of the mountains and there stored away and preserved monuments of the most hidden and most ancient erudition for the grace and use of the surviving world. From there they infer that it was subsequently communicated by the Magi and the Egyptians to the peoples of Greece. Although all these things are affirmed rashly, yet it is certain that those authors ^C hinted at that by some men conspicuous for piety and erudition, the methods, reasons, and various experiments of many sciences were preserved from that inundation of waters for future men. That which is true in all these things is that all the summits of the mountains, as divine Scripture relates, were covered by a certain measure of water, and that they lay under the waters for the space of time that the deluge lasted; nor is Cajetanus to be listened to, who thinks that some summits of the mountains were not covered by the waters of the deluge, and that this does not contradict divine Scripture; how that could have been he explains, and before Cajetanus some affirmed ^D that those mountains whose altitude exceeds the place of the generation of rains or the middle region of the air were not covered, since the deluge, generated from rains, could not rise above the place where the rains are generated. Augustine commemorates and refutes this opinion, in *De Civitate Dei*, book XV, ch. 27: Certain men opine that the deluge could not have been so great that water by increasing could transcend the highest mountains by fifteen cubits, because of the summit of Mount Olympus, above which it is related that clouds cannot ascend; so that the air there is not the thicker kind where winds, clouds, and rains are generated, and they do not attend to the fact that the earth, the thickest of all elements, could have been there. Or perhaps do they deny that this earth is the summit of a mountain? Why then do they contend that it was permissible for the earth to be exalted to those spaces of the sky, and not permissible for the waters to be exalted, when those measurers and weighers of the elements represent the waters as superior to the earth and lighter? What reason, therefore, do they bring forward why the earth, heavier and inferior, invaded the place of the calmer sky for the volumes of so many years, and the water, lighter and superior, was not permitted to do this even for a brief time? Finally, the Mahometan trifles are to be laughed at—I speak not, but I rave—which say that the ark, burdened with excrement, was in close proximity to danger; wherefore Noah, when he had fled to God, received the answer that he should take care for the elephant to void its dung into the sewers of men. From which a very large pig was generated, which devoured that filth, and from the stench of its own, a rat was produced that gnawed the ark and perforated it, so that water might enter. Noah, in greater danger, received from God that he should strike the lion on the forehead. By this percussion, the lion flared up with fury and anger, and breathed vehemently, so that from his nose a cat emerged, devouring the rat! O Mahometan elegance! O ark! O the stercoreous deity of Mahomet! O percussion of the lion so useful! O cat well-deserving of the human race! O wicked rat, more wicked elephant, and most wicked he who hears and believes these things and does not spurn them, *liri, liri*.

Col. 753, line 1. *Εἰς ἄκραν τινὰ ὄρους*. The mountain upon which the ark rested is related variously by authors: Berosus the Chaldean, according to Josephus, *Antiq.*, book I, calls it the mountain of the Cordyaeans; Nicolaus Damascenus calls it Baris. We have written out the words of Josephus above, and from him Zonaras, *Annal.*, vol. I. But why Ambrose called it the mountain of Quadratus, Pererius writes in book XIII on Genesis that he cannot reach [the meaning] by any conjecture or suspicion. However, the Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture expressed *Ararat*, which St. Jerome says is Armenia: these are the mountains of Armenia, and part of Taurus, which received various names in diverse places. Epiphanius in *Panarion* reconciles all these diversities of names, saying that after the deluge Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat (this is the Septuagint), between the borders of the Armenians and the Cardyaeans (this is the Vulgate version and the Chaldean paraphrase), on the mountain called Lubar—behold what Damascenus reported: ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσι τοῖς Ἀραρὰτ ἀναμέσον Ἀρμενίων καὶ Καρδυαίων, ἐν τῷ Λουβὰρ ὄρει καλουμένῳ. Procopius: *Ararat* runs between Armenia and Parthia towards the region of the Adrabeni. The Sibylline Oracles, book I, substitute Phrygia for Armenia; this is plainly false, as is also that which the same Sibyl adds, that she was enclosed in the ark with her husband.

Ibid., line 5. *Καὶ τὰ λείψανα*. Theophilus *Ad Autolycum*, book III: Ἧς κιβωτοῦ τὰ λείψανα μέχρι τῆς δεῦρο δείκνυται εἶναι ἐν τοῖς Ἀραβίοις ὄρεσι. Zonaras, at the same place: Ἀποβατήριον δὲ τὸν τόπον καλεῖσθαι τοῖς Ἀρμενίοις φησὶν Ἰώσηπος καὶ λείψανα δείκνυσθαι τῆς λάρνακος ἐκεῖ. And Josephus from Nicolaus Damascenus: Καὶ Νικόλαος δὲ ὁ Δαμασκηνὸς ἐν τῇ ἐνενηκοστῇ καὶ ἕκτῃ βίβλῳ ἱστορεῖ περὶ αὐτῶν λέγων οὕτως· Ἔστιν ὑπὲρ τὴν Μινυάδα μέγα ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Ἀρμενίαν Βάρις λεγόμενον, εἰς ὃ πολλοὺς συμφυγόντας ἐπὶ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ λόγος ἔχει περισωθῆναι, καὶ τινὰ ἐπὶ λάρνακος ὀχούμενον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρώρειαν ἐκεῖλαι, καὶ τὰ λείψανα τῶν ξύλων ἐπὶ πολὺ σωθῆναι. Γένοιτο δ᾽ ἂν οὗτος ὄντινα καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἀνέγραψεν ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νομοθέτης. Nicolaus Salconus, in the book of the history of the part of the East, from the mouth of Haython of the Premonstratensian order: In Armenia is a mountain, higher than any in the whole world, which is commonly called Ararath, and on the summit of that mountain the ark of Noah first rested after the deluge, and although on account of the abundance of snows, which are always found on that mountain, both in winter and summer, no one is able to ascend that mountain, it always appears at its summit...

^A a certain black pitch, which is said by men to be the ark.

Col. 753, lin. 6. *And with pitch.* Albinus, *Quæst. in Genes.*, on the nature of bitumen: Bitumen is a most fervent and most violent glue, which has this virtue, that wood coated with it can be destroyed neither by worms, nor by the heat of the sun, nor by the blasts of the winds, nor by the inundation of waters. Josephus, *Antiq.*, lib. 1, cap. 4, concerning the bitumen of the ark from Berosus the Chaldean: All those who record barbarian histories make mention of this flood and of the ark, among whom is also Berosus the Chaldean. For, relating the things concerning the flood, he goes through them in this way: It is said that a part of the ship is still in Armenia at the mountain of the Gordyaeans, and that some carry away pieces of the bitumen. And men especially use that which is brought away for apotropaic purposes. And the ship in Armenia provided protective wooden amulets for the inhabitants. A part of this ship having been deposited in Armenia, it remains on the Corcyraean [Gordyaean] mountains of Armenia, and some take from the ship, scraping off the bitumen; and they use it for apotropaic purposes. *And Noe died.* *And his sons.*

^B Nemrod persuaded. And he incited them to insolence toward God, and to contempt, Nemrod, as he was the grandson of Cham, the son of Noe; and he was daring and courageous in action, and persuaded them not to give to God the credit for their happiness, but to consider that their own virtue provided these things for them. And bit by bit, he converted matters into tyranny, thinking that in this way alone would he be able to alienate men from God, if they were to continue using his own power. And he threatened to take revenge on God again, should He wish to inundate the earth; for he would build a tower higher than the level to which the water could rise; and he would also avenge the destruction of his ancestors. Unto him came Nemrod, and being instructed by him he received the counsel to reign. And this Nemrod happened to be a brother of the heroes, the children of Sem. And he himself was the first to reign upon the earth.

*From the mountain.* *And truly the tower.* Therefore, they came to Babylon and dug up the letters from Sippar, and founded many cities, and having established temples long ago, they founded Babylon. ^C And some say that the first men who sprang from the earth, puffed up by their strength and size, and having despised the gods, raised up a high tower where Babylon now is, it already being closer to heaven, and the winds...

Ibid., lin. 8. Pseudo-Berosus Annianus, lib. III, many things about Noe, and those things which he himself did after the flood; let faith be with the author.

Ibid., lin. 9. Most of the Hebrews teach that Japhet was born of Noe in the first place, Cham second, and Sem last of all. St. Augustine, *lib. xvi De civitate Dei*, chap. 2, thinks Japhet the smallest, and Sem the greatest.

Ibid., lin. 12. For Noe and his sons, having left the mountains of Armenia after the flood, reached the plain of the earth, and the first habitation was in the land of Sennaar, in which place Babylon was afterwards built. Eusebius, *part. Chronic.*, from Alexander Polyhistor: The Hebrews assert that Noe returned from Armenia to his ancient fatherland, that is, to places near Damascus, where he established a kingdom, and founded Salem, which Melchisedech administered.

Ibid., lin. 22. Josephus, *lib. Antiquit.*, cap. 5: And he incited them to insolence toward God, and to contempt, Nemrod, as he was the grandson of Cham, the son of Noe; and he was daring and courageous in action, and persuaded them not to give to God the credit for their happiness, but to consider that their own virtue provided these things for them. And bit by bit, he converted matters into tyranny, thinking that in this way alone would he be able to alienate men from God, if they were to continue using his own power. And he threatened to take revenge on God again, should He wish to inundate the earth; for he would build a tower higher than the level to which the water could rise; and he would also avenge the destruction of his ancestors. ^D Hugo de Sancto Victore in *Annot. in Genes.* and Jerome, in *Traditionibus Hebr. in Genesin*, relate not dissimilar things. Nemrod, he says, first seized an unaccustomed tyranny among the people and reigned in Babylon, which is called the tower of those building Babel, from the fact that the languages were confused there. Methodius says that he was the grandson of Sem: which the words of Moses convict of being false, which make him the grandson of Cham: The sons of Cham, Chas, Mesraim, Phut, and Chanaam. Moreover Chus begat Nemrod. And Augustine, *lib. xvi De civit. Dei*, cap. 4: Whence it is gathered that that giant Nemroth was the founder of that city, which had been briefly intimated above, where when Scripture spoke of him, it says, the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, that is, that it should hold the primacy of the other cities, where it would be as it were in a metropolis the dwelling place of the kingdom, although it was not completed to such a degree as his proud impiety was imagining. And further down: He was therefore erecting with his peoples a tower against the Lord, by which is signified proud impiety. You have more concerning this building of the tower by Nemrod among the historians. Cajetan however thought otherwise, when he denies that the author of this tower was Nemrod, although he was the occupier of it already begun after the confusion of languages. For neither Nemrod, he says, nor any certain man is declared to have been the author of that fabric by an exhortation and incitement attributed vaguely and indefinitely to men, so that we may understand from this that Nemrod might have occupied the city of Babylon begun by common vote and effort, after the confusion of languages, and began to reign there.

Ibid., lin. 25. And truly the tower. Concerning this tower, Abydenus in Eusebius, *De præparat. evangel.*, lib. IX: There are some who say that the first ones who sprang from the earth, puffed up by their strength and size, and having despised the gods, raised up a high tower where Babylon now is, it already being closer to heaven, and the winds...

having been sent by the gods, overturned the tower and gave to each his own language; and for this reason it happened that the city was called Babylon. ^A Alexander Polyhistor, from Eupolemus, says in his work on the Jews of Assyria that the city of Babylon was first built by those who survived the flood, and that they were giants, and that they built the tower that is spoken of. But after this fell by the working of God, the giants were scattered throughout the whole earth. ^B Many others make Semiramis the parent. Claudian, in his book *In Rufinum*: It is believed that a woman's labor built proud Babylon with its hundred gates. And Propert., book III: Semiramis established the city of Babylon for the Persians, that she might raise a solid work with a baked-earth embankment. See more on Babylon in Abraham Ortelius’ *Thesaurus geographicus*, Matthæus Rader’s notes on Martial, book I, ep. 1; Strabo, book XVI; Diodorus Siculus, book III; Justin, book I; Jean Bodin’s *Compendium historicum*, Rodiginus, and others. We also noted more in our little book on Philo of Byzantium’s Seven Wonders of the World, for that most elegant [account] regarding Babylon and its walls. ^C *Ibid.*, line 36. *Every man, therefore*. Our Eustathius follows the successions of the sons of Noah most distinctly, and the division of the earth. For these can justly be called the parents of all men, since the rest perished in that inundation of waters, and from them the origin of us all must be recognized. For, spread throughout all parts of the world, they propagated the human race, and for the sake of immortality and memory, they transmitted their own names to their descendants. ^D *Ibid.*, line 41. *Of the Greeks*. This, indeed, was the preeminence of the Greeks, this their virtue, granted to them alone, denied to others: to take what was discovered by others and lead it to a better fruition, to perfect the mutilated, to distribute the confused, to supply the lacking, to remove the superfluous; not barbarously, not indistinctly, but with the best method, most beautiful eloquence, and most apt structure of speech; and also to discover many things themselves, which they perfected in such a way that no one could have spoken more aptly or conveniently than they. Why do you whine and chatter, most inept Annius, towards those through whom, if you have ever profited at all in letters, you have profited, you rustic ingrate? If these are the Greeks of whom you dream, why such trifles spent in studying them through so many vigils? Why do you foolishly expend so many collected ineptitudes? Why do you waste your labor in illustrating those commentaries? Verily, you are caught red-handed, together with those whom you worship with your studies, slandering them with an unfair tongue, either as insane, or deceitful, or an impostor! They are Greeks whom you yourself choose as your guides, and you are all the more perverse towards them, because, while you accuse them as if they were impostors, you nonetheless follow in their footsteps.

^A Let us allow the Greeks to remain, let us cast them out of the city: shall we then erase their history, their doctrine, their arts, and their very memory from the minds of men? Whose shall we take in their place? From where, then, shall we have a standard for our studies and the fruit of our sciences? From you, you tactless glutton, who merely stammer, who so poorly understand the good things found among others, and who pour them out so badly with your most foul tongue?

Col. 753, line 43. ^A This also seemed more correct to Sallust in the preface to his *Catilinarian Conspiracy*: "They sought glory by means of the talents of the mind rather than those of the body; and since the very life which they enjoyed was short, they strove with all their might to make their memory as long-lasting as possible." And this, beyond doubt, they achieved. For although they were not so by nature, yet by their laws, their arts, and the disciplines refined by themselves, they were held to be the parents and authors of other nations. This excited envy against them among many, so that they were treated badly, becoming subject to the jealousy of all writers. Lactantius, *Divine Institutes*, Book 1, Chap. 15: "There were added also the poets, who, with songs composed for pleasure, raised them to heaven: just as those who, among kings, even the evil ones, flatter them with lying panegyrics." This evil originated with the Greeks, whose levity, equipped with a faculty and abundance of speech, has stirred up an incredible cloud of lies. And so, admiring them, the first [peoples] received their sacred rites and handed them down to all nations. On account of this vanity, the Sibyl rebukes them thus:

"Greece, why do you trust in mortal leaders? Why do you offer vain gifts to the dead? You sacrifice to idols; who has cast error into your mind, So that you do these things, while lacking the face of the great God? My wrath favored the *Nēs* all the more. Zeus himself, A barbarian, bears noble insults upon Olympus. And wisdom granted unspeakable boldness. And, in the earth, Who was more gentle than the race of the Greeks? Who [more keen in] mind? Who [more noble as] the first? Who more glorious? Say only, 'Greek,' and you speak all; you have woven all things together with him. The Greek undertook the work of both hand and counsel, Far greater than celestial strength. The Greek entered the flood of the sea, he arrived at the Ends of the earth; he descended into the depths; he trod the house of Hades. He pleased, and swift of foot he flew aloft, lightened, And ran with his feet a celestial rowing-course. He gave laws to all, he fixed the foundations of cities With straight justice. He showed the customs of life. Equal to me in kingly honor, [the tyrant] Rules over all, exulting in his might. I myself gave these things, because they were according to my will. For it is not right to speak of the heavenly ones with a lie. They labored with a task equal to my limbs, equal to Olympus, Having fashioned the tireless race of the Greeks. I gave all things to the elder to bear. Zeus [gave] men to [other] Men, Zeus is a Greek, and a Greek is a god among the blessed. Wherefore I also called the half-divine Hellenic branch to be, And I made you servants of old. I forced the celestial ones to bear servile yokes upon the earth, ^B So that I might garner great glory among the Greeks." With such loves, as many as [surrounded the] Sky, was Ares alone aflame for Zeus. But love subdued me with countless darts From the land of Greece. Nor did I cease from longing; But longing carries a new longing, with which A new love burns me with sharper arrows than the former. And again another leapt forth, which scarcely did the [target] catch. And more longings pierce the heart. The mothers of you are a scion of the Hellenic Race. The Greek shook you off, yet You have approached their daughters, from whom grew A race of dauntless, war-mad heroes. And such prosperity shone for a long time, nor [withered] In quarrels, like the sun in its purity. And they rejoiced greatly; he himself met the Beneficial path. Nor did he tread the day of the son of Cronus. And he boasted that he had instructed wisdom according to my commands. The wretched enemy remained [hostile] to God. Wherefore he also stirred up strife, having kindled envy among the blessed, Desiring to share the seats of the heavenly ones. He thirsted to possess the glory of my honor. And he hates his creator. Restrain thyself, heart, [be calm]. He hated the benefactor, he brought shame as an evil toward his friend. Who has committed such transgressions as the Greek?

They happened, therefore, to him. And the son of Noah, Monēton, went Into the East, and as far as the sea Which is called the land of the sun, where the rising of the ^C sun occurs. And this Monēton received from God the gift of wisdom, so that he was the first to invent the art of astronomy. To him came down Nimrod, and having been instructed by him, he received the plan according to which he should rule over him.

^A It is known that Eusebius was Greek by nation—taking "Greek" in the broad sense—and that Jerome wrote in Greek; but let Jerome be Latin. Josephus was a Jew by religion, but Greek in his writing. That is fine, but how is Eusebius Latin? Is it because he himself read Josephus in Latin? But he also read Josephus in Greek (for this author was not of such great importance that he would have perused Greek authors who spoke in Greek, as can be seen passim in this little book), and Berosus in Latin, yet he does not number him among the Latins. If, therefore, it is not his writing but his nature and custom that determine Tarafa’s judgment of the race, Eusebius will be Greek.

Col. 753, line 52. Gomer, who are the Gamareis. Chronicon Alexandrinum, Eusebius, and along with Eustathius is Josephus (lib. 1, Antiq., cap. 7): Some think that the Cimmerians, who were later called Cimbri, originated from him, and they prove that the Cimmerians were beyond Thrace around the Maeotian marsh from chapter 37 of Ezekiel, who writes that Gomer and Togarmah are at the sides of the North.

Ibid., line 54. Magog, who are the Magodians. Magog populated those named Magogians after him; they are called Scythians by others. Eusebius, from whom are the Celts and Galatians. Chronicon Alexandrinum, from whom are the Acyrtani. This nation of Magogians, Ezekiel says, is from the North and would lay waste to Israel in later times; hence our Eustathius not unjustly affirms it to be Scythia. For the many nations of the Scythians and their names, see Abraham Ortelius in *Thesaurus geographicus*. Strabo writes in Book I that all the regions known toward the North were called by one name at first—either Scythians, or, as Homer says, they were called Nomads; he seems to assert the same in Book II. ^B

Ibid., line 55. Aeduth, the Madaeans. Of the sons of Japheth, Javan and Madai. From the latter come the Madaei, a nation called Medes by the Greeks. Eusebius, from whom are the Medes. Chronicon Alexandrinum, Madaei, from whom are the Britons. The Medes progressed toward the East; they are a noble and wealthy nation, if we are to trust Herodotus, Xenophon, and other writers.

Ibid. Javan, Ionia. From Javan, Ionia and all the Greeks have originated. Javan, from whom are the Greeks and the Ionians. Ionians, the Spanoi, who are also the Tyrrhenians.

Ibid., line 56. Obel, the Theobelians. Thobel also settles the Thobelians, who are called Iberians among those of the present day. Annius and Tarafa endeavor to prove this with many arguments, taking them from certain names of the cities of Iberia, and they establish him as the first king of the Spaniards. But if the locales of Scripture are well considered, they indicate another nation than that to which these two authors refer everything. For the peoples of the Iberians were in Asia, neighboring the nation of the Chalybes, and there they searched for metallic veins. For even Ezekiel places Tubal in the North. Justin writes in his last book that the Chalybes came into Spain, so that it is credible that men of that people sought metallic veins there and in other lands as well. Eusebius, Chronicon Alexandrinum—neither Annius nor Tarafa noticed these things. ^C

Ibid., line 57. Mosochenians. And the Moschini were founded by Moschus. They are called Cappadocians presently, but the sign of their ancient appellation remains. For there is a city among them to this day called Mazaca, signifying to those who are able to understand that the nation was once called by that name. Eusebius, Metochians, from whom are the Illyrians. Mesoch, from whom are the Getulians. Some think that these are the peoples of Muscovy, who were called Moschians and Mossynoeci by the ancients. The first seat of this nation was the coast of the Euxine Pontus; later they were the Cappadocians; then they progressed toward the North.

Col. 756, line 1. Thiras, the Thiraeans. Thiras called them Thiraeans, whom he ruled; but the Greeks renamed them Thracians. Thiras, from whom are the Thracians. Thiras, from whom are the Afri. There is also a river in Russia by the name of Thiras, wherefore some suspect that both the river and the nation were named from this appellation of the son of Japheth. ^D

Ibid., line 2. Aschanax, from whom. From Gomer three sons were born, and Aschanaxes settled [the land], who are now called Rhegines by the Greeks. Aschanas, from whom are the Rhegines. Aschanath, from whom are the Mizikes.

Ibid., line 3. Riphath, from whom. Riphath [settled] the Riphathaeans, who are called the Paphlagonians. Eusebius, Ri-phath, from whom are the Sauromatae. Chronicon Alexandrinum, Ruphath, from whom are the outer Garamantes, or Garamantes.

Ibid., line 4. Thugrammaeans. Thugrammes [settled] the Thugrammaeans, who are thought by the Greeks to have been named Phrygians. Thor-gama, from whom are the Armenians. Thosmagas, from whom are the Brades.

Ibid., line 6. Elisasa, from whom. Of Javan, son of Japheth, three sons were born. Alisas called them Alisaeans, whom he ruled, and they are now the Aeolians. Elissa, from whom are the Sicilians. Elissa, from whom are the Moors.

Ibid., line 7. Tharsis, from whom. Tharsus [settled] the Tharsians. For thus was Cilicia called in ancient times. And there is a sign: for among them the most significant city is called Tharsus, being the metropolis; they change the 't' in the naming for the 'theta'.

'. ^A Tharsus, from whom the Iberians. Tharsus, from whom are the inner Taranantes. Chethim, Chethima. Chebimus took the island of Chethim. This is now called Cyprus, and from it all the islands and most of those by the sea are named Chethim by the Hebrews. And a witness to my account is one of the cities in Cyprus that has managed to preserve the designation. For it is called Cethios by those who have Hellenized it, yet not even so escaping the name of Chethim. Cetii, from whom the Latins who are also the Romans. Rhodians, from whom are the Romans, who are also the Latins. Chettieim is Cyprus. Cedar was the son of Ishmael, son of Abraham, from whom the land of the Saracens is named. Some say they are Cypriots, some say Indian tribes. Some have said the Chettieim are Cypriots, some the Chians.

And the sons of Ham. And the children of Ham occupied the land from Syria, and Amanus, and Lidatus, of the borders, having seized whatever was turned toward its sea, and having claimed for themselves the parts as far as the ocean. The designations of some, however, have become completely extinct, and others, having changed and been transformed into others, are difficult to recognize. And to his second son, who was 127 years old, Ham gave the land toward the south, and the southwest, and a part of the west from Rhinocorura of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Egypt, and Libya, Africa, and Mauritania as far as the pillars of Heracles, that is as far as the western and Libyan ocean; and a river separating them, the Nile, which is also called Geon and Chrysorrhoas. And to his second son by Noah, Ham gave Egypt from Rhinocorura as far as the Gadareni, and all the parts to the south which seemed to be entirely burning hot. Chus, from whom Chus. For four sons of Ham having been born, time did not harm Chusaeos; for the Ethiopians, over whom he ruled, are still now called Chusaei by themselves and by all those in Asia. Chus, from whom the Ethiopians; Mestrem, from whom. The memory regarding the designation was also kept by the Mestraei. For we who inhabit this land all call Egypt Mesre, and the Egyptians Mestraeans. Mestraim, Mesraeim, from whom the Egyptians; he who was from Ham, the son of Noah, Mestrem, migrated to Egypt; and from him the land was named; for Mestrem denotes Egypt in the Hebrew tongue. Phout, Phoutoi. Phoutes also founded Libya, having called the locals Phoutous after himself. There is also a river in the land of the Moors ^B bearing this name. Whence one may see most of the Greek historians...

^C ...with males, brutes, and every other kind, for this reason he was cast out by the most pious Janus, who was full of chastity and modesty, and he obtained the nickname Chem Esenua, that is, Chem the infamous and obscene, an incubus and propagator; for *Esem* among the Aramaic Scythians is infamous and obscene, while *Enua* is obscene, then propagator, etc. Abbot Serenus, in *Collation* 8, chapter 21, handed down that the first authors and masters of magical superstitions and illusions were evil angels once mixed with women; that Ham, the son of Noah, was the most studious and skilled of these arts, who, that these arts might not perish in the flood, preserved them inscribed on tablets of different metals and very hard stones, and after the flood taught them to his descendants and disseminated them throughout the world.

Likewise, the *Historia Scholastica* on Genesis, chapter 29, writes similar things: Ninus, it says, saw Ham, who was still living and reigning among the Bactrians, or as others prefer, in Thrace, and was called Zoroaster, the inventor of the magical art, and wrote this and the seven liberal arts on fourteen columns, seven of bronze and seven of brick, against the twofold destruction of the world, which he had heard would happen, one by water, and the other by fire. Ninus, however, burned his books. Let the trustworthiness of these things rest with the authors themselves. They will never persuade me that Ham was involved in magical arts, or practiced sorcery against his father, or that he preserved the magic received from his parents against that flood of waters on bronze or brick columns, and that, called Zoroaster, he fought most atrociously against Ninus, by whom he was conquered and defeated, and whose books were burned; since neither the order of time, nor the authority of the Fathers, nor divine scripture assert this. A great space of time intervened between Ninus, and Zoroaster, and the Noetic flood. ^D ...Ibid., line 20. Josephus: Eusebius, and the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, the stock of the Ethiopians is in the farthest coast of Africa; and with Ptolemy in the inner part of Libya is the name *Chusitae*. Ibid. Josephus: Eusebius, *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, and John of Antioch in his *Archaeologia*. Ibid., line 21. Josephus:

^A Mestremius himself inhabited the region of Egypt, from whom they also say Egypt received its name. For *Mesrem*, in Hebrew, is interpreted as Egypt.

Ibid., line 41. *And were born too*. Josephus: There were also born children of Canaan: Sidonius, who also built a city named after him in Phoenicia, which by the Greeks is called Sidon. Amathus inhabited Amathus, which even now is called Amathus by the locals, but the Macedonians named it Epiphaneia after one of their descendants. Arudaeus took the island of Arados, and Aruchaeus took Arca in Lebanon. Of the other seven—Euaios, Chettaios, Iebussaios, Eudaios, Seinnaios, Samaraios—other than their names, we have nothing in the sacred books. ^B Eusebius: Children of Canaan, of whom the firstborn is Sidon; Sidon, from whom come the Sidonians; Chatnaios, from whom... Iebussaios, from whom the Iebussites; Amorraios, from whom the Amorrites; Gergesaios, from whom the Gergesites; Euaios, from whom the Euites; Aroukos, from whom... ; Asenaios, from whom... ; Aradios, from whom the Aradians; Samaraios, from whom the Orthosites; Amatheis, from whom the Amathusians. *Chronicon Alexandrinum*: Canaan begat Sidon the firstborn; Sidon, from whom the Mysians; Chettaion, from whom the Dardanians; Iebussaion, from whom the Iebussites; Amorraion, from whom the Germans; Gergesaion, from whom the Sarmatians; Euaion, from whom the Pannonians; Aroukaion, from whom the Paeonians; Asennaion, from whom the Dalmatians; Aradion, from whom the Romans, who are also the Kittaeans; Samaraion, from whom the Ligurians; Abade, from whom the Amathusians.

Col. 757, lin. 6. *Five also children of Sem*. Josephus: To Sem, the third of Noah's sons, five children are born who inhabit Asia from the Euphrates, having taken their beginning from there. For Elumos left behind the Elamites, who are the leaders of the Persians; Assouras inhabited the city of Ninus and named his subjects the Assyrians, who fared most prosperously; Arphaxades named the people now called Chaldaeans the Arphaxadaeans, having ruled over them; Aramus had the Aramaeans, whom the Greeks call Syrians, while those who are now called Lydians were founded at that time by Ludas. ^C Eusebius: To Sem his firstborn son, who was in his four hundred and thirty-first year, he gave the land from Persia and Bactria as far as India in length, and in width from India as far as Rhinocolura in Egypt, that is, from the rising sun as far as the part of the south, both Syria—which is also called Judea (for the ancients also called the Palestinians Syrians)—and Media and the river, the Euphrates, which marks those boundaries. And further below: From Sem the firstborn, twenty-five nations, as follows: Arphaxad, from whom the Chaldaeans; Elam, from whom the Elamites; Assour, from whom the Assyrians; Lud, from whom the Lydians; Aram, from whom the Syrians. *Chronicon Alexandrinum*: Then again Epiphanius. And to Sem, the first son of Noah, there fell by lot the region from Persia and Bactria as far as India; the length of the lot was as far as Rhinocolura. This Rhinocolura is situated between Egypt and Palestine, lying opposite the Red Sea. Children of Sem the firstborn, twenty-one tribes: Ailam, from whom the Elamites; Assour, from whom ^D

^A the Assyrians; Arphaxad, from whom the Chaldeans; Loud, from whom the Mazones, and Medes, and Persians; Aram, from whom the Extai. From these I amend the text of Eustathius: Five were the children of Sem.

Col. 757, line 16. Sons of Aram. Josephus: Of the four children of Aram, Ouses founded Trachonitis and Damascus. It is situated between Palestine and Coele-Syria. Oul founded Armenia, and Gether the Bactrians; Mesa the Mesanaeans; the fortress of Pasinus is called by the moderns. Eusebius: Sons of Aram: Os, from whom the Trachones; Oul, from whom the Magardi; Gather, from whom the Armenians; Mosech, from whom the Messenians. Chronicon Alexandrinum: Os, from whom the Madinaei; Oul, from whom the Lydians; Gather, from whom the Garpheni; Mosoch, from whom the Alasseni. One must note in passing regarding Ouses, the founder of Damascus. Jerome, in *Quaest. Hebraicis in Gen.*, chaps. 10 and 14, concludes that Damascus was founded before Abraham, since Abram pursued those four kings as far as Heba, which is to the left of Damascus. But the same Jerome, in ch. 15 of his *Historia scholastica*, Tostatus, and others, assert that the city of Damascus was built by Damascus, a servant of Abraham. And thus, in the time of Abraham, Moses called that place by anticipation, as it was called in his own age.

^B Delrius, in chap. 10 of Genesis, thinks that Moses did not do this out of ignorance, but with good reason passed over this generation, because he had determined to recount only ten steps from Noah to Abraham, just as there were ten from Adam to Noah. Rightly, therefore, the Seventy, and Saint Luke who followed them, judge that one should not pass over what Moses passed over, because they were not attending to that decimal number, but had determined to provide an exact catalogue of absolutely every generation. Finally, Saint Jerome performed the duty of a faithful interpreter by omitting it; for since he was translating from the Hebrew source, he was bound to omit what he had not found in the Hebrew codices. Conversely, Saint Luke, because he was following the Septuagint version, was bound to set down what was read among them, and what was consonant with the truth. And to the difficulty: "Why then did the Seventy set it down, being translators, when it was not held in the Hebrew, and when they themselves did not attend to that ten?" he responds that they often performed the office not only of translators, but also of paraphrasts and even prophets as well, and by this means they also wished to preserve for us the immediate generation of Arphaxad, which Saint Luke was subsequently to exhibit. Others suggest that generation was inserted into the translation neither by the Seventy, nor into the Gospel by Saint Luke, but by someone—they know not whom—and they demonstrate this with several conjectures. It is truly difficult in a matter so grave to produce something certain and consonant with the truth; for to defend one is to accuse another, which accusation would be both impious and unworthy of a Catholic man. ^C One and the same Spirit, by divine impulse and inspiration, directed both the hand of Moses writing, and the Seventy translating, and Saint Luke repeating, by sustaining them. Who, without the greatest mark of impiety and detriment to the Catholic faith, will assert that this Spirit was a liar in Luke or the Seventy, and truthful in Moses, or vice-versa? If, according to Basil, *Homily 10 on Genesis*, to say that any word in the Scriptures is idle or superfluous is blasphemy, what will it be to admit errors and falsehoods in them?

Ibid., line 21. Sons of Arphaxad. Eusebius: Sons of Arphaxad, Cainan, from whom the Gaspheni. Chronicon Alexandrinum: Cainan, from whom the Sarmatians. Regarding the generation of Cainan, there has long been a controversy stirred up among authors, and the case is still *sub judice*. The Seventy Interpreters commemorate it, and Saint Luke, chapter 3 of his Gospel history, acknowledges it; besides the said authors, Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, book XVI, chap. 10, and others, whom there is no need to recount here. The Hebrew Scripture and the Chaldaean paraphrase do not have even a word. Who, therefore, are the ones who are false and have erred? The Seventy, or the Hebrew? Since it is impossible for both to be true. Pererius, *Disputation 11, book XVII*, sets forth various opinions and refutes them at length. Augustine Eugubinus says that the Seventy Interpreters erred in that addition, and who would not shudder at the thought that Saint Luke followed their error? Cajetanus [says] that the Seventy erred in adding it, but that Saint Luke is excused from error, since he followed what he found among the Seventy, fearing that by writing something different from the Seventy Interpreters, his own writings would be less approved by the common people. Joannes Lucidus, *De emendatione temporum*, and Hartmannus Contractus in their *Chronicles* say that Sale and Cainan were one and the same person, and they correct the text of Saint Luke 3:35–36: "Who was Sale, who was Cainan," into "Who was Sale, who was also Cainan." Aloysius Lippomanus in chap. 11 of Genesis and Melchior Canus, *De locis theologicis*, book II, ch. 18, judged that this generation of Cainan truly intervened between Arphaxad and Sala; and that the Seventy either from sure tradition of the elders or from trustworthy histories inserted it into their translation—which Moses knowingly and prudently had passed over, so as to complete the series of generations in decades not without some mystery. ^D Ibid., line 24. Sala, from whom the Susians. Eusebius: Sasan, from whom the Cosseans. Chronicon Alexandrinum: Sala, from whom the Salathiaeans.

Ibid., line 26. Son of Sala, Heber. Josephus: Arphaxad’s son is Sala, and his is Heber, from whom they called the Jews "Hebrews" from the beginning. Eusebius: Heber, from whom the Hebrews. Chronicon Alexandrinum: Heber, from whom the Albanians. That the Hebrews were denominated from him, as Heberians, and not from Abraham, Augustine hands down, *De civitate Dei*, book XVI, chap. 3: "Not in vain," he says, "is he himself first named in the progeny coming from Sem, and he is even preferred to the sons, though he is the fifth grandson: unless because it is true what is handed down, that the Hebrews were named from him as Heberians, although there could be another opinion, so that they might seem to be called Abrahamites from Abraham." But undoubtedly it is true that they were called Heberians from Heber, and thence with one letter taken away, Hebrews—which language only the people of Israel were able to obtain.

^A in which the city of God is both a wanderer among the saints and is foreshadowed by sacraments in all things. And in *Retractions*, bk. II, chap. 14, having set aside the primary opinion which he had held at one time, that they were named Hebrews after Abraham, he preferred this same opinion to others. Eusebius upholds the same in the beginning of his *Chronology*, Arasius of Caesarea in *Genesis*, Jerome in *Hebraic Traditions on Genesis*, chap. xvi, and they have been followed by Bede, Isidore, Lyranus, Eugubinus in his annotations on *Genesis*, chap. xiv, and others. Artapanus, in Eusebius, bk. IX of *Evangelical Preparation*, the final chapter, reports that they were so named from Abraham, the prince and most noble progenitor of his race, and that they were called Hebrews as if *Abraeans*. But Artapanus says in the *Judaica* that the Jews were called *Hermiouth*, which, translated into the Greek tongue, is *Jews*. ^B And that they were called Hebrews by Abraham. Augustine followed this at one time in *On the Agreement of the Evangelists*, bk. I, chap. 14; eventually, others think they were surnamed Hebrews from Heber—which in Latin has passed over—and not from Abraham nor from Heber. Origen, Diodorus of Tarsus, Rupert in *Commentaries on Genesis*, bk. V, chap. xi, Chrysostom in *Homily 55 on Genesis*, and Theodoret in *Question 60 on Genesis* were of this opinion; he defends it in such a way as to refute the opposite. For if, he says, they took the name Hebrews and the Hebrew language from Heber, all the descendants of Heber ought to have been called Hebrews and to have used that language, which did not happen with the Syrians, Moabites, and other descendants of Heber. And therefore he judges that they were called Hebrews from the fact that Abraham, coming from the region of the Chaldeans, passed the river Euphrates into Palestine. For in the language of the Syrians, *Hebra* is said the same as Euphrates. Paulus Burgensis thinks the Hebrews were so surnamed as being, as it were, foreigners, and that this is the etymology of the word in that language, concerning which it is not to be doubted; for who does not know that that race was a wanderer both in the land of Canaan and in Egypt?

Col. 757. *Whoever from the beginning*. The Greek *Chain on Genesis* reports that Heber escaped the penalty of the confusion of tongues because he did not assent to those who were attempting vain things. They say that the language was preserved in Heber alone, as he did not participate in the daring deed of the tower. Manasses in his *Annals*: "But Heber alone remained free from the plague, for he did not join with those acting in vanity." Suidas: "He did not cooperate with the tower-builders, and his dialect remained unchanged." Theodoret, *Question 59 on Genesis*, judges Syriac to be the most ancient of all languages, while Hebrew was first given to Moses by God. For just as in the temples of the Greeks there are certain peculiar characters of letters which they called sacred, so God gave this language through Moses, not indeed a natural one, but one apt for teaching. But Augustine in *City of God*, bk. XVI, chap. 11, and bk. XVIII, chap. 39, and Jerome in chap. III of *Sophonias* (and elsewhere) agree otherwise with our Eustathius. Origen, *Homily 11 on Numbers*. Jerome, *Oleaster* on chap. X of *Genesis*, and others.

Ibid., line 30. *Children of Heber*. Eusebius: Phalec, from whom came the Bactrians; Helmodam, from whom came the Indians; Jectan, from whom came the Madianites. The *Alexandrian Chronicle*: Phalec, from whom is derived the race of Abraham the forefather; Jectan, from whom came the Ethiopians. ^C Ibid., line 31. *But Phalec was...* Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his *Chronography*: "In the days of Phalec they were divided; and for this reason, the name Phalec signifies 'division' in the Hebrew tongue. And he died before this event. In his time the building of the tower took place, and from one original dialect, a polyphony came about. And the diversity of tongues according to each nation, the divine Scripture says." That was the opinion of the Hebrews, that Heber was a great prophet, and by the inspiration of the divine numen, foreseeing two hundred years ahead, he imposed the name Phalec. Jerome feels the same, who in *Hebraic Traditions on Genesis* affirms that Heber, by a certain prophecy, that is to say from the future event of the division of languages, imposed the name upon his son. And Chrysostom, *Homily 50 on Genesis*: "Consider," he says, "how he declared the foreknowledge of a future thing by the name of the child born; so that when you see the thing fulfilled by the deed, you do not marvel further, seeing it divinely predicted by the boy's name." Josephus, however, in *Antiquities*, bk. I, and Augustine, *City of God*, bk. XVI, chap. 11, [say] this name was given not from a future event, but from what had been done.

Ibid., line 36. *For three thousand*. Those who write about the periods of time differ among themselves not insignificantly and proffer various things, so that it is easier to refute what another has said in this matter than to produce something that lacks refutation; since the reasons and arguments by which these things are established are not altogether certain, but doubtful. Let every man hold this for certain: that he errs the less the less he departs from the tradition of the Catholic Church, in which alone is both the truth of all things and certainty; in other matters, the lust and audacity of the human intellect make all things obscure and entangled in six hundred errors. However, we shall bring forward what others have handed down as certain, even if they are not so in truth. And as we said above, there is a very great difference between the Greeks and all those who have followed the version of the Seventy Interpreters, and the Latins, seeing that they have fixed the spaces of times differently in the describing of the times of the fathers and patriarchs. Fridericus Husmanus in his *Chronology* counts 1788 years from the creation of the world to the 50th year of Phalec, before the birth of Christ 2172, and 1421 to the founding of Rome; Genebrardus in his *Chronograph*, bk. I, is not far from his opinion regarding the year from the creation of the world to the 30th year of Phalec. Cunmannus Flinsbachius [in] 1787, Joannes Funccius in his *Chronology* [in] 1739. ^D Our author, however, asserts that three thousand years had elapsed until the birth of Phalec. But we also will say some things below regarding the years from the creation of the world to the birth of Christ.

^A Col. 757, line 37. *We reckon, indeed.* Many Fathers of great name have followed this opinion: Justin Martyr, in his *Questions to the Gentiles*, 71; Irenaeus, book V, *Against Heresies*, the last chapter; Lactantius, book VII of the *Institutes*, chapter 7; Hilary, in his commentary on Matthew XVII; Augustine, book XX, *On the City of God*; Jerome, in his letter to Cyprian and his commentary on Micah, chapter IV; Germanus; and Constantine, in his book *On the Theory of Ecclesiastical Subjects*, to which number he adds five hundred, asserting that Hippolytus of Rome, Saint Cyril in his book *On Antichrist*, and likewise Chrysostom had said the same things before him. We are taught by experience itself that this opinion is not true, especially if we consider the Septuagint translation; the authors cited above, who asserted this modestly, for the most part followed it. They always kept before their eyes the saying of Christ in Mark XIII, 32: *But of that day or that hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son*; and Acts I, 7: *It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power.* Yet very recently, Cunmann Flinsbach, driven by the madness of the raging Lutheran heresy, in a treatise published on this subject, endeavors to show that the age of this world, which God in His wise and inscrutable counsel determined for the world as a certain and fixed limit, will not exceed six thousand years. He then argues that the final sixth millennium, in which we now live, will not be completed. He attempts to show this, as it seems to him, through ten conjectures fetched from here and there by the primates of his heresy. But he has accomplished everything except this one proposed aim; for most foolishly, and in every way vainly, seizing an opportunity, he inveighs most impiously with a foul and slanderous mouth against the Catholic Church beyond all measure and reason. It is a common trait of all who, having neglected the truth, join themselves to other insane opinions and errors. Thus, since he brings forth nothing of his own, he also takes what has been snatched elsewhere and twists it into a worse meaning; and in such a deluge of conjectures, he brings forward not one which might bear the form of a discourse or of an argument. It is not my interest, nor do I consider it part of my duty, to refute his conjectures; yet I will handle the last one, which he himself calls the sum of all conjectures, so that from it the reader may be able to discern the others. ^D Now, in place of a crown, we shall subjoin that remarkable saying of the prophet Elias, which, although it nowhere exists in the Scriptures, since it is the sum and a sort of explanation of all the other conjectures, it ought to be most well-known to all, and is to be held in the highest regard. "Six thousand years of the world, and afterwards destruction: two thousand emptiness, two thousand Law, two thousand Christ; and if anything shall be lacking of these, it shall be lacking because of our sins, which are great and countless." Behold, Cunmann’s crown; behold, the remarkable sayings; behold, the prophet outside the Scriptures; behold, the sum and the explanation, the value of which we shall see. First, it is false that this saying belongs to the prophet Elias the Thesbite, since it is the commentary of a certain Rabbi Elias, a cabbalist of the Jews, in the Talmud, tract *Sanhedrin*, ^B chapter *Helec*, and in the treatise *On Idolatry*, chapter *Libne*, and in the treatise *On the Sabbath*. Rabbi Isaac cites his conjectures in his commentary on Genesis. Second, it is a wonder that this secret concerning the duration of the world, hidden from every nation, even from the angels, and from the Son of man—which, according to the opinion and exposition of the Fathers, was to have been revealed to Elias and by him to the whole human race—was nevertheless unknown to the apostles. Fourth, from Augustine in the explanation of Psalm LXXXIX: "Men have dared to presume to possess the knowledge of the times, whereas the Lord says to the disciples who desired to know: *It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in his own power*; and they decided that this age could be finished in six thousand years, as if in six days; nor did they attend to what was said, *as one day which is past*; for when this was said, only a thousand years had not passed. And what should have warned them most of all, so that they might not be deluded by the uncertainty of the times, is that [it is] *as a watch in the night*; for neither do they seem to have supposed anything probable concerning the six days because of the first six days in which God finished His works; thus, they can also adapt six watches—that is, eighteen hours—to that opinion." See also Ambrose, book VII, Commentary on Luke, on that passage of Matthew XVII, 2, *After six days He was transfigured.*

Ibid., line 44. *On the...* There have been various opinions among chronographers concerning this matter and the year of the birth of Christ, some of which Sixtus of Siena has recorded in his *Library*. We also shall subjoin some for the illustration of this place. Moreover, we shall clearly explain what our opinion is on this matter in those things which we are already preparing concerning the end of times. Abraham Bucholzer, in his *Chronological Isagoge*, posits the year 5970; for having divided the series of the years of the world into three periods of time, in the first, namely from the creation of the world to the temple of Solomon, he enumerates 2934 years; in the second, from the built temple to its desolation, and thence to the end of the Babylonian captivity, 501 years; in the third, from the end of the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ, 537 [years], which all, if taken together, constitute the number 3970. To these three, he reconciles the Eusebian chronology, and that of other especially Greek [authors] who have borrowed numbers from the Septuagint, firstly by the correction of the numbers of the Greek version, Genesis V and XI; secondly, by the omission of the decade in the reign of Ammon, 4 Kings XXI; thirdly, by the application of the last year of the Babylonian captivity to the times of Cyrus. Cunmann Flinsbach, in his confirmation of chronology, enumerates 3962 years: namely, from the creation of the world to the flood 1656, from the flood to the call of Abraham 567, from the call of Abraham to the exodus from Egypt 430, from the exodus from Egypt to David the king 437, from David to the Babylonian captivity 501, from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ 501; in all, 3962. John Funck, in his *Chronology*, [enumerates] 3965: namely, from the creation of the world to the Persian monarchy 3406, from the Persian monarchy to the kingdom

of the Greeks after the death of Alexander 254, from the kingdom of the Greeks ^A to the Roman monarchy and the birth of Christ 322: in all, the years are 3963. Ubbo Emmius of Friesland, in his *Chronology* and his very brief and full *Compendium of the Chronicle*, counts 3950 years, namely: from the creation of the world to the flood 1657 years, to the calling of Abraham 2024, to the exodus from Egypt 2453, to the building of Solomon's temple 2932, to the destruction of the temple 3360, to the restoration of the temple 3531, to Christ born on earth 3950. John Boulæsius 3960, and he demonstrates this by a threefold path. First: the age unknown to the Gentiles before the flood 1657, the golden age 249, the silver age 430, the bronze age 448, the tin age 427, the iron age 240, the leaden age with the addition of 46, 510; and in this way they arise from the creation of the world to the birth of Christ 3960. ^B Second: from the beginning of the age to the flood 1656, from the flood to Ninus the monarch 249, from Ninus to the end of Sardanapalus 1234, from Arbaces to Alexander the Great 495, from Alexander the Great to the end of the kingdom of Syria 235, from the possession of Syria by the Romans to the birth of Christ 91, and thus likewise there will be 3960. Third: from the creation of the world to the flood 1656, from the flood to the completed 15th dynasty 292, in the 16th and 17th dynasties 293, in the 18th dynasty 348, in the 19th dynasty 194, in the following six dynasties 489, from the 26th dynasty to the death of Alexander 369, from the death of Alexander to Christ 319, and thus likewise he establishes 3960 from the beginning of the world to Christ. Gilbert Genebrard, in book I and at the end of book II, 4090: from the creation of the world, namely, to the flood 1656, six days; from the flood to the birth of Abraham 293, ten days; from the birth of Abraham to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt 720; from the exodus to the laying of the temple foundations 480; from the foundations of the temple to the Babylonian captivity 419, six months; from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ 520. In all, they are 4089. If you add the days and months, the birth of Christ will be in the year 4090. John George Hervart, in his new *Chronology*—recalled to astronomical calculation—chapter 3, p. 264, posits the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ in the completed year of the world 3955; and that he might not appear to assert this without reason, he laid the foundations of his opinion and brought it into the light. For he counts with others, by Hebrew authority, from Adam to the flood 1656 years. Thence to Abraham 292, thence to David 942, to the captivity 873, and thence to Christ 589. Which, collected together, are 3952: to which if you add the three years after which the vulgar epoch of Christ was initiated by St. Jerome, the years will be 3955. You also have the series of years from the creation of the world to the birth of Christ in Carion’s *Chronicle*, which see. And from the Hebrew *Baal Seder Olam*, from the creation of the world to the destruction of the temple under Vespasian, it counts only 3888 years, that is, to the birth of Christ 3757. More recent Rabbis to the birth of Christ [count] 3760 years, 4 months. Whence the fourth millennium of the world is conferred by them to the year of the Lord 240; the fifth to the year 1240, and so on, as the Jews commonly follow today. Rabbi Nahsson in his book *On the Paschal Cycle* 3740, Rabbi Levi in XII of Daniel 3781, Rabbi Moses Gerundensis 4058, 5 months. And the opinions of these, as can be seen, although they seem varied and not uniform, nevertheless do not exceed the number of the fifth millennium. The other [group] is of those who add many years beyond the fifth millennium, and yet they do not agree. Augustine counts 5351 years; Isidore, *Etymologies* V, 5210. Orosius 5190, Alfonsus 5984; Eusebius thinks the same as Orosius, Theophilus of Antioch *To Autolycus* 5476. Nicetas, *History* book I, cap. 10, 5503; Cedrenus 5506, the Greeks commonly 5508, as in the Sixth Synod, cap. 3. In the *Horologium* and the Paschal cycle, Nicodemus ^C concerning the resurrection and passion of the Lord, 5500 years; this is: from the creation of Adam to the flood 2212, from the flood to Abraham 912, from Abraham up to Moses 430, from Moses to King David 510, from David to the Babylonian migration 500, from the migration to the incarnation of Christ 500; all of which are 5500. The *Alexandrian Chronicle* 5507, Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople 5500. Whom he collects thus: [Greek text omitted: collation of chronological data provided]. See Argyrus in the *Paschal Cycle* and others. Our Eustathius 5531. But by what reasoning he affirms this cannot be briefly explained, since it is difficult to examine the lives of the fathers before and after the flood, and to distinguish the years and interregna of the kings of Judah and others—it is not the business of this work, and requires much labor and scripture, lest we seem to have wasted our efforts. We reserve the explanation of this question, however, for our own book, which we cited above. There were also found two manuscript collections of years: one from the end of the *Marcellian Chronicle*, from Adam to the flood 2242 years, from the flood to Abraham 942 years, from Abraham to the passion of the Lord 2244 years, from the founding of Rome to the Lord's advent 752 years, from the passion of the Lord to the consulship of Eustathius 394 years, and to the consulship of our Lord Theodosius XV, 409 years. From Adam to the XIV year of Valens—that is, to his consulship and that of Valentinian II—are 15579 years in all; the other, from the end of the *Eusebian Chronicle*, from the founding of the city under the kings 240 years, under the consuls 464 years, under the Augusti and Caesars 493 years; all years are collected up to the consulship of Theodosius the Younger XVIII and Valentinian the Younger, son of Placidia, V, Augusti: 1197. From Abraham to...

the time written above, 2395 [2295] years; having expunged the third C, this number 2295 was placed in the margin by a more recent hand.

Col. 760, lin. 12. ^A *Sons were born to him.* Eusebius: ^B Arabad, from whom are the Arabs; Iduram, from whom are the Kameli; Dera, from whom are the Medes; Iezia, from whom are the Ariadni; Deklam, from whom are the Kedrusii; Gebel, from whom are the Scythians; Abimeel, from whom are the Hyrcanians; Sabat, from whom are the Arabs of the Indians; Uer, from whom are the Uarnaei; Euen, from whom are the Gymnosophists. Sarmoth, from whom are the Arabs; Iarach, from whom are the Kamplii, who are also the Canaanites; Odoxa, from whom are the Arriani and Pherezites; Dekla, from whom are the Kedrusii, who are also the Amorites; Aisel, from whom are the Hyrcanians, who are also the Evites; Abimeel, from whom are the Scythians, who are also the Gergesenes; Sabau, from whom are the inner Arabs; Ofeir, from whom are the Armenians.

Ibid., lin. 22. *And in the times.* Epiphanius, in the beginning of the work which he wrote against heresies, teaches that in the time of Seruch idolatry began among men, and that in his times many temples were built, and certain princes of the nations were adored. Manasses in his Annals:

From there the race of men transgressed, And looked toward lawless deeds and abominations, Slaughters, and murders of men, bloodshed, and debauchery. They delighted in plunder, they found pleasure in adulteries, And they practiced every device of wickedness. They went raiding, they plundered, they stole, they committed adultery, And lastly they looked toward idolatry. Seruch was the first who began to use graven images and pillars.

Suidas: This Seruch is descended from the tribe of Iapheth, and from him began idolatry. For he decreed that the ancients who had excelled should be honored with images and statues, and be honored as benefactors; and this prevailed until the times of Thare, the father of Abraham.

The cause of this error was this: Seruch, showing honor to the ancients as inventors of remarkable things, strong in battle, and skilled in wisdom of war and the arts, erected images, likenesses, and pillars for the glory of virtue and the memory of benefits. But posterity, not understanding this, revered the inanimate statues as gods and adored the graven images, venerating them as the divinities that those statues and likenesses represented. Thence they turned men to a foreign cult, and devised new ones day by day, which they adored. Thus Suidas, Epiphanius, the Chronicon Alexandrinum, Manasses, and others.

Ibid., lin. 27. *Nachor was born.* The Hebrews in *Bereshit* affirm that Thare was a statuary, a maker of idols, and a seller. The same is held by Christopher, Patriarch of Alexandria, in his oration: *To what is human life likened? For when God was angry* ^C at Thare, the father of Abraham, He put to death his third son, whom he loved above the others, so that the father might be sobered, but he was not sobered. For he continued to make idols and sell them to the idolaters. Now the age had at that time reached the twentieth generation, 2332 years (another codex has 2250), ^D and no son of former men had ever died before his father, except Lamech, the son of Mathusala. And divine grace, wondering [at this]... For he was a maker of images, fashioning likenesses from various materials, and saying that these were gods, and that they ought to be worshipped as the causes of good things.

*Aram died.* Abraham had brothers, Nachor and Arane. Of these, Arane, having left behind a son, Lot, and daughters Sara and Melchana, died among the Chaldeans in a city called of the Chaldeans, Ur. And his tomb is shown to this day. He, being the eighth descendant from Noah the just, is descended from the tribe of Iapheth, and from him began idolatry.

Ibid., lin. 29. Josephus, *Antiquities*, bk. I, ch. 7: The Hebrews relate, and Jerome confirms it in *Hebraic Traditions on Genesis*, that Abraham was cast into the fire in the region of the Chaldeans because he would not adore the fire, which the Chaldeans worship, and that, liberated by the help of God, he fled from the fire of idolatry. Aram also, because he similarly refused to adore the fire, was put into the fire of the Chaldeans and consumed in the conflagration. Jerome sometimes called this tradition true, sometimes a fable. Paulus Burgensis, on the testimony of Rabbi Moses, thus recounts the liberation of Abraham following the benefit of God: "Rabbi Moses therefore, in the book *Guide for the Perplexed*, says that in a certain book on Egyptian agriculture it is recounted that a certain distinguished man, named Abraham, publicly disputed with the worshippers of idols, asserting that fire should not be worshipped as God. But the king, fearing that he might draw the people away from that cult by his own authority and speech, threw him into prison, and, despoiled of all his goods, banished him from all his dominion." The cause of the death of Aram, as it is set forth here, seems to me both truer and more probable. For it would have been unjust that Aram should be treated so, if, led by the example of Abraham, he had committed his life to the fire of the enemies of God for the sake of the true worship of God, and yet was not liberated from those flames. You will say he was inflamed because he opposed himself to a similar danger with a deceitful mind and not truly piously. Who, in such an urgent and evident danger, exposing himself freely against God, from whom he expects all help, would act with an evil mind? This would surely be to turn the evil on his own head and to inflict manifest death upon himself with a dagger.

Ibid., lin. 34. *They marry.* Some have imagined that Sara was the sister of Abraham, born of the same mother and same father. Clement of Alexandria, book I of *Stromata*, Cajetan, *Solus*, book I *On Justice and Law*, [and] Jerome in *Traditions on Genesis* seem to say something in favor of this opinion. Others...

Migne's rendering continues: ^A We must consider that the Father of all presented [the law] to those before us. “For the world,” [Methodius] says, “not yet being filled up with men, was as an infant, and it was necessary that, having first reached maturity from these, it should be multiplied. But when it was eventually settled from ends to ends, and the human race was diffused to infinity, God no longer permitted man to remain in the same state, considering how, passing from these things to those, they might progress nearer to heaven, until, having reached the greatest and most pinnacle-like lesson, which is virginity, they might be perfected, having traveled from the union of brothers first to taking wives of another blood, and from there to no longer mounting many [women] by the law of brute beasts, as if born for rutting, and from there to not having become adulterers, and again to temperance, and from temperance to virginity, where, having practiced to despise the flesh, they may anchor fearlessly in the calm harbor of immortality. If any should dare to blame this teaching as lacking the testimony of the Scriptures, come, by citing the prophets also, we shall prove the things said more truthfully. Abraham, at any rate, being the first to receive circumcision in a covenant, seems to hint at nothing else than this, by circumcising a member of his own flesh: namely, that one should no longer beget children from those created of the same seed, teaching each person, by cutting away the pleasure of the flesh according to intercourse from his own sister. So that approaching and using their own sisters as wives has ceased from the times of Abraham.” ^B The rest of it Marcella follows up most learnedly and elegantly, which, God granting, we shall publish along with the rest for the public good. The custom of the Persians, who mixed with their parents, is known to all; concerning whom I refrain from speaking here.

[Col. 760, lin. 45]. *And Tharra.* “But Tharra having hated the Chaldeans on account of the grief for Aran, they all migrated to a land of Mesopotamia; where indeed they bury Tharra, who had died, having lived two hundred and five years.” ^C And regarding the rest. “For from that time the length of life had been already lessened for men bit by bit, and it became shorter until the birth of Moses, after whom the limit of living was one hundred and twenty years, God having ordained these things, as many as it befell Moses also to live.” See the dissertation of Caspar Dornavius on the causes of the longevity of the primeval fathers, the title of which is *Mathusala Vivax*.

[Ibid., lin. 53]. *Abraham but.* Josephus, in *Antiquities*, book I, chap. 8, has the same, and adds that Berosus remembers Abraham by a silent name. [He says] that Hecataeus did not remember him in passing, but having composed a book about him, commended his deeds to posterity, and likewise Nicolaus of Damascus in the fourth [book] of his Histories.

^A Speaking of him, he says: "Abram reigned in Damascus, having arrived as an immigrant with an army; and in the tenth generation, he says, in the city of Babylonia called Camarina, which some say is the city of Urie, but being interpreted is a city of the Chaldeans, Abraham was born in the thirteenth generation, having surpassed all in nobility and wisdom; who also discovered astrology and the Chaldean science, and having been impelled toward piety, pleased God. And this man, having come into Phoenicia on account of the commands of God, dwelt there, and having taught the Phoenicians the movements of the sun and moon and all other things, pleased their king."

Col. 761, line 1. *This man alone.* Josephus and Suidas agree concerning Abraham, as does Eusebius in the first part of the Chronicle: "Abraham, being a Chaldean by race, was reared his first years among the Chaldeans, and partook of the astrology and other wisdom which they possessed. But being a lover of God, and not consenting to allow his mind to linger on created things, but rather having been led up from the beauty of created things to the Creator, he was deemed worthy of divine illumination while still dwelling in his fatherland." ^B And: "This man alone, of all everywhere who were afflicted with the error toward idols, recognized the true God and proclaimed Him the Creator of all things."

[Regarding] *On Unwritten Laws*, which is *Abraham*; *On Giants*; *On Nobility*.

[Regarding] *Towards then.*

[Regarding] *And rising up from thence.*

[Regarding] *When famine had taken hold.*

"When famine had taken hold of the land of the Chaldeans, divine Abraham, the great, became a wanderer, and leaving his kindred, he migrated into Egypt, so as to turn aside the destructive fire of famine, having encountered more abundant sustenance there. And there accompanied him also his spouse, setting out for a foreign land, Sarah, fair-faced and most beautiful."

"When a famine occurred, Abraham departed into Egypt with all his household, and dwelt there, and his wife passed for the sister of the king of the Egyptians, he himself saying she was his sister."

^C Artapanus says this man came with all his household into Egypt to the king of the Egyptians, Pharethones, and taught him astrology. And having remained there twenty years, he again departed to the places in Syria. And of those who came with him, many remained in Egypt because of the prosperity of the land.

[Regarding] *And the Egyptians.* "For since the Egyptians were pleased by different customs, and held in contempt the traditions of others, and for this reason were ill-disposed toward one another, he, having engaged with each of them, and refuting the arguments which they made concerning their own [customs], declared them to be empty and possessed of no truth."

[Regarding] *And having been admired.* "Having been admired, therefore, by them in their gatherings as a man most wise, and formidable not only in understanding but also in persuading [others] when he undertook to teach, he bestows upon them arithmetic, and imparts [knowledge] concerning astrology. For before the arrival of Abraham, the Egyptians possessed these things ignorantly; for these things flowed from the Chaldeans into Egypt." ^D

^A Eupolemus, in his *Polyhistor*, says that Abraham lived with the Egyptian priests at Heliopolis and imparted many things to them, and introduced them to astrology and the rest, stating that the Babylonians and he himself had discovered these things, and he traces the discovery of them back to Enoch, and that he was the first to find astrology, not the Egyptians. Artapanus says that Abraham, having been taught the science of astrology, first came to Phoenicia and taught the Phoenicians astrology, and afterwards arrived in Egypt.

However, this opinion does not please Pererius, and he says that Divine Scripture refutes it: first, because Abraham was in Egypt for a very short time, so that in such a brevity of time those disciplines could not have been explained or learned; second, because he was ordered to leave Egypt immediately upon his wife being restored to him, and attendants were given to him so that he would suffer no harm. Thirdly, from St. Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, bk. XVIII, ch. 40, who praises Varro as his authority, by whom it was reported that the Egyptians first learned letters under the tutelage of Isis a little over two thousand years before his own age. But Isis was the daughter of Inachus, king of the Argives, whose reign, according to Eusebius, began after the death of Abraham. Finally, Iamblichus, in his *De mysteriis Aegyptiorum*, makes Mercury Trismegistus the first author of wisdom and learning among the Egyptians. But Eusebius and Augustine affirm that he was more recent than not only Abraham, but also Moses.

However, these arguments do not seem so substantial, if they are correctly considered, that the opinion of those just mentioned, and of our Eustathius, should be rejected: first, because it is not clear to us how long Abraham stayed among the Egyptians, which that it was not very short is evident from the fact that Scripture says the Lord struck Pharaoh with great plagues and his house. For it is not to be believed that first of all God brings great plagues; rather, first He brings lighter ones, and then, as malice and treachery grow, more severe ones, which cannot be believed to be accomplished in a very short time. For prior warnings and signs are required; and also, on the part of the sinner himself, perseverance in evil and an obstinate mind are required for great plagues to be struck, just as in a dissimilar matter, yet one not unrelated in reason and scope, Moses ^D reported concerning the Egyptian Pharaoh, which, in order to be put into execution, require both a long time and prolonged delays.

Furthermore, since we concede that no violence was done to Sarah, but that she was, so to speak, occupied by marriage, it is necessary to admit that no small amount of time passed while her observers reported it to the king, while the king watched her having been summoned to him, and compared her with other women of his own kingdom, and did not, like a wild beast, act with impulse and fury to join her to himself in marriage immediately, but tried to persuade her with solicitations, blandishments, and other things, from whom, as from a most honest woman—as was fitting and seems closest to reason—he suffered rejection, and then repeated the same offices, often and not once only. Where, once she had heard him, [she] had accustomed herself to being illuminated with pigments and anointed with oils, which also require delay and time. Add also this, that after Sarah was restored, Abraham did not immediately depart from Egypt, as is likely, although he had men given by Pharaoh’s order to lead him out. For Pharaoh, taught by experience and made wiser by the lashes, would not have expelled Abraham in a spirited or rigid manner, but with his will laid out and help provided, he dismissed him to his own power, and he departed when his affairs were settled. But how much that time was I would not dare to affirm, yet it was more than enough for teaching mathematical disciplines; for he did not explain those sciences to those who were entirely unskilled and ignorant: ^B but to those who, having been imbued already with other disciplines as best they could, and having a certain confused knowledge of those things, whether they had it by nature or by art, were swelling with desire, to whom it sufficed to hint at not even the minimal, but the primary things in mathematics, so that he could be esteemed their teacher, upon whose foundations being laid they were able to prepare for themselves their most perfect knowledge and understanding of those things by their own efforts. What else, pray, would Varro hand down, to whom the history of the Hebrews was hardly known, and who, like other heathens, perverted things received from them? And Iamblichus calls Trismegistus the first wise man of the Egyptians, as, I suppose, one who produced something not only by voice but also in writings. Nor does it seem to me that Varro and Iamblichus should be preferred in divine history and the explanation of Scripture to Eustathius, Eusebius, Josephus, and others.

*Col. 761, line 23. Mαθόντες δὲ*. Thus, all men of noble character have always confessed, even from among the Greeks themselves. In readiness are the things that Tatian, Clement, Theophilus, Eusebius, and others have written on this subject. Diogenes Laertius, bk. I, just as also some others, does not agree.

*Ibid., line 24. Υἱὸς Ἰσμαήλ*. From whom the Ishmaelites, who are also the Arabs, are called Hagarenes from Hagar, the maidservant of Abraham, which, since it seemed hardly honorable to Muhammad, he ordained that they should be called Saracens from Sarah, the legitimate wife of Abraham, saying that Ishmael was born from her and not from the maidservant, which name remained with them until the Turks abolished it together with the nation. Thus Africanus: *Σαρακηνοὺς δὲ αὐτοὺς μετωνόμασαν ἀπὸ ῾Αγὰρ δουλικῶς ᾿Αγαρηνοί*. And Eusebius: *Τῷ πς' ἔτει τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ ῾Αγὰρ ἡ παιδίσκη τὸν Ἰσμαὴλ, ἀφ' οὗ τὸ τῶν Ἰσμαηλιτῶν γένος· οἱ δὲ αὐτοὶ εἶεν ᾿Αγαρηνοὶ οἱ καὶ Σαρακηνοὶ καλούμενοι*. Which statement is ridiculous, with Holy Scripture manifestly protesting. It does not escape me that others trace the Turkish race to other parents and fathers, whom you will certainly not disapprove of, if you consider the overturnings of nations, the migrations of places, and the confusion of names. Very often a noble and not to be despised nation is overcome by a vile war and arms, and, exhausted, loses not only wealth and places, but even its name, and receives the name of the victor, as is difficult

^A to trace their certain origin, with no memory of them remaining. Such are the turns of time and the sport of nature. Some have thought that the Saracens were named from the city of Saraca in Arabia—for this name for a city is also found in Pontus and Media—or from the city of Sarra, as Euthymius Zygabenus suggests. How well they understand the author of their race, Ammianus tells us in Book IV, as does St. Jerome in his *Life of Saint Malchus*. Although the Saracens are thought to be properly those who were known to the ancients as Scenitae, it is certain that all Arabs came to be called Saracens. Finally, they degenerated into the Turks. Regarding their origin, see Joannes Leunclavius in his *History of the Muslims*, Book II, as well as Philippus Hanivaldus, Joachimus Camerarius, and others.

And [did not] extend their hand to the needy and poor; and they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me, and I took them away as you have seen (Ez. XVI, 49-50). See St. Jerome’s commentary on this passage. But the most grievous sin was that from which they took their name, and with it the sin of idolatry. Let the reader judge how vain and empty the traditions of some are regarding this sin, when they trace its origin to the most noble nations, even though it was rampant among those impious men in that Pentapolitan region in the time of Abraham; at which time there was not yet any memory of those accused regions, for all the stories of those nations are later than that Sodomitic fire. Although it is to be admitted as true that, even before the flood, that crime was in use not only toward men but even toward brute beasts, as the authors we brought up earlier write when we were commemorating the sins for which the whole world was overwhelmed by the flood of waters. Therefore, it is clear from sacred history that this barbaric and unspeakable crime was first invented by barbarians and then spread to other nations. Why, you malignant biter, do you attack the most noble and innocent nations with unworthy accusations, gnawing at them with a livid mouth?

Col. 761, line 29. “Heavenly fire.” [Eusebius in the first part of his *Chronicle*: God rains fire upon the Pentapolis. And it consumes the entire race of men from it, and destroys also the very stature of the land, and the waters of the sea lying before it become dead. Many other proofs show that the region was burnt: for they show certain burnt and rough rocks around Masada, and caverns in many places, and ash-colored earth, and drops of pitch flowing from the smooth rocks, and foul-smelling rivers boiling from afar, and dwellings overturned in scattered places, so that one might believe the rumors of the locals that thirteen cities were once inhabited there, of which the circle of the metropolis of Sodom, of about sixty stadia, might have been overtaken by the lake due to earthquakes, eruptions of fire, and hot, asphaltic, and sulfurous waters, and rocks became fire-stricken, and some cities were swallowed up, while those who could flee escaped.] ^B

Ibid., line 31. “It is possible to see.” The epitomator of Stephanus says there were ten cities, and that Sodom was their head. Strabo adds three others and errs in two points: first, in the number of them; second, in holding that Sodom remained whole for a number of stadia—for both points contradict Holy Scripture. Others record that there were four: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, and a fifth, named Balam, was destroyed, unless God had preserved it immune through the prayers of Lot. Josephus, in *Antiquities* (though he asserts the contrary in *Jewish War*, Book V, cap. 5) and Jerome in *De locis Hebraicis* address this. Theodoretus, in his *Questions on Genesis*, and Suidas, under the entry "Lot," write that it was destroyed after the departure of Lot, and that all the inhabitants were swallowed up by the gaping earth; ^C thus it is no wonder that there is no mention of the five cities by Eustathius.

Ibid., line 32. “In which it blossoms.” That this conflagration also raged against herbs and plants, and afflicted them with a wondrous degree of sterility, we have from various authors. Josephus, *Jewish War*, Book V, cap. 5; Tacitus, *Histories*, Book V: “Not far from there are the plains which they say were once fertile and inhabited by great cities, which were burnt by the strike of lightning, and the vestiges remain, and the earth is scorched in appearance and has lost its fruit-bearing power. For all things, whether grown spontaneously or planted by hand, whether to the point of herb or flower, grew to a burnt appearance.” ^D Eratosthenes has a different opinion on this; see him.

Ibid., line 30. That the sins of the Sodomites were not just one but many, and most grievous, Josephus reports in *Antiquities*, Book I. And God says in Ezekiel, chapter XVI: Behold, he says, this was the iniquity of Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and idleness.

^A It might be worth recounting the nature of the Asphaltite Lake as well. It is, as I have said, bitter and barren; yet due to its lightness, it buoys up even the heaviest things thrown into it, and it is not easy for them to sink to the bottom, even if one tries. I was assembling notes alongside the Salt Sea, which is now called the Dead Sea. I have seen many wonders in it. It bears no living creatures; dead things are carried beneath the surface, while the living could not easily be submerged. Lamps that are burning are carried upon it, but when quenched, they sink. Then, floating due to the nature of the water—which, as we said, requires neither swimming nor submersing the one who enters it, but rather lifting him up. Here also are the springs of asphalt; it produces alum and salt, differing slightly from others, for it is bitter and clear. Where any fruit is found there, it is not found to be anything but smoke and very turbid. The water, however, heals those who use it. It ceases, suffering the contrary from all water. If it did not have the Jordan River running through it like purple and resisting for a long distance, it would have ceased sooner than it appears. There is also, beside it, much of the balsam plant. It is surmised that it was overturned by God because of the impiety of those dwelling around it. It borders on this.

^B ...that authors were lacking to Strabo, whom he would have sought out in this regard, or because Pliny reports that some have handed down that the Sirbonian Lake has a circuit of one hundred thousand paces. Concerning the Asphaltite Lake, see Dioscorides, Book 1, ch. 100; Vitruvius; Pliny; Antigonus Carystius; Strabo; Africanus; Tertullian, in the poem *De Sodoma*; Orosius, Book 1 of his *History*; and Adrichomius, the most diligent of all, in the tribe of Judah, no. 186.

Ibid., line 39. "Light is the water." Josephus, *De bello Judaico*, Book V: [Greek text translated above]. And Africanus: Strabo, Book XVI: [Greek text translated above].

Ibid., line 46. "And it brings up salt." Josephus has the same in the aforementioned place, where he treats of bitumen and its use in medicines. Pliny, Book II, ch. 103: "Nothing can be submerged in the Asphaltite Lake of Judea, which produces bitumen"; and Book V, ch. 16, contains the same. See what Antigonus Carystius has in his *Mirabilia* according to the opinion of Zenophilus, and Dioscorides, Book I, ch. 100. Africanus: ^C Strabo, XVI, philosophizes more on this same matter, and according to the opinion of Possidonius, who attributes the rest to the power of nature, to magic, and to incantations. Justin, Book XXXVI, narrates that this marsh is neither moved by winds nor capable of navigation—against the opinion of others: "In that region there is a lake which, on account of its size and the immobility of its water, is called the Dead Sea; for it is neither moved by winds, as the bitumen resists the whirlwinds, and because of which the whole water is stagnant, nor is it capable of navigation, since all things lacking life sink to the bottom; nor does it support any matter unless it is smeared with light."

Ibid., line 52. "So that they cannot." Pliny, Book VII, ch. 15, having a discussion on the flow of women: "Indeed, the bitumen, being otherwise tenacious and of a viscous nature—in the Lake of Judea, which is called Asphaltites, at a certain time ^D ...

^A of the year floating upon the surface, it cannot be pulled away, adhering to every contact, except by the thread that has infected it with such a virus." Solinus, lib. 1: "Bitumen is born in Judea, which the lake Asphaltites produces, so slow in its glutinous softness that it cannot be separated from itself: for indeed if you wish to tear off a part, the whole will follow; nor can it be severed, since it extends in proportion as it is drawn, but when threads stained with that gore have been applied, it disperses of its own accord, and the filth being applied, it is drawn away, a body one moment ago joined in tenacious contagion, a sudden partition." Josephus: "To those who have filled it, it is not easy to cut it off, but by its tenacity it is attached to the vessel until they dissolve it with the menstrual blood of women and with urine, which alone works on it." Brodæus, lib. IV, cap. 23; Possidonius says these are tricks and incantations, which the neighbors were addicted to using, as Strabo reports, lib. XVI.

Col. 761, lin. 54. *Allattein de phasin*. Josephus: "There is also on this account a marvelous change of color; for three times each day it changes its surface, and reflects the rays of the sun in various ways."

Col. 764, lin. 1. *Kai meta ten ogdoen*. Josephus, Antiq. lib. 1: "A child is born to both in the last year, whom they circumcise immediately after the eighth day, and from that time after so many [years] the Jews have had the custom of performing circumcisions." Why the eighth day was assigned for circumcision, Chrysostom touches upon two reasons in *Homily 59 on Genesis*, which, however, do not satisfy Pererius in ch. XVII. Wherefore, having exploded those, he brings another into the medium and confirms it with various arguments. Nor from this passage of Eustathius do we detect that Abraham violated a divine precept, since he did not circumcise his son on the eighth day, as God had commanded, but after the eighth day. For although he could postpone circumcision without sin for new emerging causes, yet he himself fulfilled the command of God: and Eustathius spoke in this way, just as Josephus also did, if my opinion does not deceive me, in order to show that the boy should be circumcised when he had already completed eight days, and it seems to be elicited from the very words of Scripture, ch. XVII: "An infant of eight days shall be circumcised among you, every male," etc. Therefore, either on the eighth day itself, or when it has been completed. Strabo, lib. XVII, thinks that even Jewish women were excised, which Delrius, *on Genesis* cap. XVII, rejects as false and ridiculous. Certain Rabbis say they used for circumcision a certain lustration of water not unlike baptism, as Joan. Benedictus narrates, lib. 1 *Summa de peccatis*, cap. 7.

Ibid., lin. 4. *Arabes gar*. Josephus, lib. 1, cap. 13, Antiq.: "But the Arabs [are so named] after the thirteenth year; for Ishmael, the founder of their nation, born of the concubine to Abraham, is circumcised at this time." And that the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and others received the rite of circumcision from them, there should be no doubt to anyone, even if Herodotus thinks otherwise, who reports that the Palestinians learned this from the Egyptians. That is indeed manifest, that before the circumcision of Abraham himself, ^B no man anywhere is reported to have circumcised himself, after Abraham was circumcised, and many other nations. Herodotus, 1. II: "They circumcise their private parts for the sake of cleanliness, valuing being clean more than being handsome. Priests also shave their whole body every day, lest any louse, or other filth, be created among them during the worship of the gods." Among the Egyptians, circumcision was held in such estimation that no one except a circumcised man had access to dignities and other rewards of honor. Origen, lib. II, *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*: "Among the Egyptians, who were held to be the most ancient and learned in superstitions, and from whom almost all others borrowed their rite of sacred rites and ceremonies, no one studied either geometry or astrology, or searched into the secrets of genesis, unless he were circumcised." Likewise, no one could be a priest among them, nor an aruspex, nor a minister of any rites, nor, as they called them, a prophet, unless he had been previously purified by circumcision and initiated. All hierophants, and all prophets, and all mystics and knowers, as they think, of either heaven or hell, have no faith or authority among them, and are held in no honor, if they lack this mark of circumcision. How, however, the Egyptians and other nations received the rite of circumcision from Abraham, Gregory Thaumaturgus pursues at greater length, *Catena on Jeremiah*, cap. IX, 26; whom see.

Ibid., lin. 8. *Mipote meta*. Josephus has the same, *Antiq.* lib. 1, cap. 13: "By the same reasoning, he also bestowed gifts on the other sons born of Keturah, so that after his death he might relieve Isaac from retaliation and settle the dissensions and contentions that could arise after his death in the division of property." Cajetanus: "Therefore, he says, Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines, and dismissed them from his care, so that he might exonerate Isaac his son from the burden of providing for them. For it devolved upon Isaac, as the universal heir, the duty of providing for his brothers who were excluded from the inheritance: for such an exoneration is signified by saying, as it is in the Hebrew, 'And Isaac sent them away while he was still living,' as if lifting the burden that was upon Isaac, and because this execution was the last thing done by Abraham most prudently, therefore it is added that he did it while he was still alive."

Ibid., lin. 10. *Kateschon goun*. Josephus, XVI: "These gave names to all the country from the Euphrates and extending toward the Red Sea, the Nabataean [country]. And these are they of the nation of the Arabs, and they name their tribes after them both because of their virtue and because of the dignity of Abraham."

Ibid., lin. 13. *Ho Theos ton Isaak*. The same Josephus, *Antiq.* lib. 1, cap. 14, where he also records that Isaac was twenty-five years of age when he was led to the sacrifice to be immolated. Aben Ezra [says] twelve, the Hebrews [say] thirty-seven. But the opinion of Josephus seems more reasonable; for Isaac could not have carried the weight of the wood for the holocaust at the age of ten or twelve, up the arduous and laborious mountain path, in such tender age, nor could he be called a "boy" by Scripture if he were thirty-seven—too far advanced. From which Paulus Burgensis argues, Isaac

^A should not have been older than fifteen, and therefore he refutes this last opinion. But it is manifest that this argument is futile, even to those who have not yet tasted the senses of Holy Scripture, nor to whom it has been given to be wise and to judge in them.

Col. 764, line 16. The Hebrews hand down that on this same mountain Abel and Cain sacrificed, and after the flood Noah, and on that very spot after many centuries the temple was built by Solomon. Augustine, *Serm. de temp.* 71: Hear that sacrament, most beloved brethren; Jerome the presbyter wrote that he had learned most certainly from the ancients and the elders of the Jews that Isaac was immolated where Christ was later crucified. Bede, *De locis sanctis*, cap. 2: In that place, however, where Abraham built an altar to sacrifice his son, there is a small wooden table upon which the alms of the poor are wont to be brought by the people.

Ibid., line 19. This speech of Abraham to Isaac is transcribed entirely from Josephus, *Antiq.*, book 1, cap. 14.

Ibid., line 21. This paternal duty, to form children so that they are not unapt for attaining blessedness, which is the end and felicity of human nature; this is to be procured with all care and diligence, and other things are to be despised. Plato, book 5 *De repub.*, advises in the begetting of children to imitate those who are studious of animals, who take pains so that from the best dogs, horses, and birds, the best offspring may arise. He had taken this from Ocellus Lucanus’s book *De universi natura*, who had written before him ^B thus: Two things therefore are to be cared for in the begetting of children: first, that they may be born as knowing and elegant as possible. Second, when they are born and received, that they be liberally educated; for it is unjust to take pains to seek out all things suitable for their own purpose, driven by the study of dogs, horses, and other living creatures, but to neglect the education and instruction of one's children.

Ibid., line 25. Basil of Seleucia, in his oration on Abraham: "He asked for the one he had given; he asked again for the one he had fashioned; he received, having asked for the one he had given; being asked, he will give back again when he wills, being hindered by no one. For he who gave what was not, will also grant what has died."

Ibid., line 27. Lyranus contends that these words were wrongly attributed by Josephus, because he makes Abraham believe that Isaac was going to die in such a way that his soul would remain perpetually with God and not return again to life; for that would have been contrary to the faith of the divine promises concerning the future progeny of Isaac, which Abraham held most firm and unshaken, most certainly believing that God would again recall Isaac from the dead to life; which indeed Paul testified concerning him in explicit words in *Hebrews* xi. How empty this argument is, the reading of the text itself sufficiently shows.

Ibid., line 28. *Antiq.*, book 1: Isaac, for he was of a father who attained ^C a noble mind, receives the words with pleasure; and having said that it was not right, even from the beginning, if he were about to reject the judgment of God and father, and not submit himself readily to the will of both, especially when it was impious not to obey even when the father alone was intending these things, he rushed to the altar and the slaughter.

Ibid., line 45. Alexander Polyhistor among Eusebius, *De praeparat. Evang.*, book 9: A short time later God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a whole burnt offering to Him. And having led the boy to the mountain to pile up firewood and place Isaac upon it, and about to slaughter him, he was hindered by an angel who presented a ram to him for the sacrifice. And Abraham took the boy down from the woodpile and sacrificed the ram. And this is confirmed by Philo the poet.

Ibid., line 50. Eusebius, *Chronic.*, book 1: Being the first of the prophets, the Word of God having appeared to Abraham in the form of a man declares the calling of the nations, which the Word of Christ has brought to completion among us through the Evangelical teaching to all nations. For since Abraham was a servant of Christ, and he above all men received the manifestations of Christ, and the mystery of the Trinity was sufficiently depicted for us in the tent of this old man, when he entertained the three angels as wayfaring men, and simply from many mystical riddles this man became a kinsman to God, who in later times clothed himself with flesh, and through this man as a veil spoke clearly to men; for this reason, he says that his bosom is a kind of quiet harbor, and an undisturbed resting-place for the just.

Col. 765, line 3. When Sarah had died. Josephus, *Antiq.*, book 1, cap. 16: He marries Keturah.

Origen, ^A *Hom. 11 in Gen.*, shares the same opinion, namely, that after the death of Sarah, Abraham took Keturah into marriage, and this is sufficiently evident from the order of the Mosaic narrative. Cajetan, however, in cap. 25 of *Genesis*, has doubts. The time, he says, when Abraham took Keturah as his wife is not certain, namely, whether this occurred while Sarah was still living, after the casting out of Hagar with Ishmael, or after she was already dead. The narrative of Scripture, however, if it follows the order of events, suggests that this took place after the death of Sarah.

Col. 765. *And Keturah.* It was the opinion of the Hebrews that Keturah and Hagar were one and the same woman, even though the names vary; and that Abraham did not take her in a new marriage after the death of Sarah, since he had previously joined himself to her lawfully. Lyra and Thomas Aquinas, in cap. 25 of *Genesis*, followed them in this. Jerome, in his *Hebraic Traditions*, is hesitant and leaves it uncertain. Keturah, he says, is interpreted in the Hebrew tongue as "bound" or "joined"; for which reason the Hebrews suspect that, her name having been changed, she is the same as Hagar, who, when Sarah died, passed from being a concubine into being a wife; and thus, indeed, the extreme age of Abraham seems to be excused, lest the old man, after the death of his old wife, be accused of having lusted after ^B new nuptials. But let us leave aside what is uncertain. Cajetan and others reject and refute this opinion.

Ibid., line 9. *And to all these.* Josephus, book 1: After Josephus, Jerome records that these sons of Keturah held Troglodytica and Arabia Felix, as far as the Red Sea. Others add that they occupied most of the regions of India. But it does not seem, says Pererius, to agree with what Moses records about them in this place, writing that they lived toward the eastern district, with respect, of course, to the place where Abraham lived, whether it was Hebron or Beersheba. For Scripture calls regions "eastern" with respect to Palestine, which look rather toward Chaldæa and Persia. This, however, in no way fits the Troglodytic region, which lies in Africa, nearest to the Ethiopians, and is most remote from the aforementioned description of the eastern district. These matters, however, require a longer investigation.

Ibid., line 13. *And Ophren.* Josephus, book 1: It is said, moreover, that this Ophren, having campaigned against Libya, seized it, and his grandsons, having ^C settled there, called the land Africa after his name. Alexander Polyhistor also bears witness to my account, speaking thus: Cleodemus the historian of the Jews, just as Moses their lawgiver also recorded, [says] that many children were born to Abraham by Keturah. And he gives their names, naming three: Apher, Sourim, and Iaphra; [stating] that Assyria was named after Sourim, and from the two, Apher and Iaphra, both the city of Aphra and the land of Africa [were named]. For these, he says, campaigned with Heracles against Libya and Antaeus, and Heracles, having married the daughter of Ophren, begat from her a son, Dedor. From him was born Sophon, from whom the barbarians are called Sophaces; [others read] Sophas. ^D He who records the things concerning the Jews, just as Moses their lawgiver also recorded, says the prophet, who is also Malchus the historian regarding the Jews, just as Moses their lawgiver also recorded, that many children were born to Abraham by Chaitoura. And he says their names, naming three: Apher, Sourim, and Iaphra; that Assyria was called after Sourim, and from the two, Aphra and Iaphra, the city of Aphra and the land of Africa [were named]. For these, [he says], campaigned with Heracles against Libya and Antaeus, and Heracles, having married the daughter of Ophren, begat a son from her, Dedor. From him was born Sophon, after whom the barbarians are called Sophaces; Sophas. He who records the things regarding the Jews, just as Moses their lawgiver recorded, ... Pererius is unsure whether it can be believed for certain that this Ophren invaded Libya with an army, and settled there afterward, and that Libya was called Africa after him by a change of name, since it is manifest from Scripture itself that Midian with his children held Upper Ethiopia, or, as others interpret, the part of Arabia next to the Promised Land. Profane authors, Solinus, cap. 27; John Leo in his *Description of Africa*, book 1, report differently from Josephus. See Isidore and others.

Ibid., line 17. *Who with Heracles.* Josephus from Cleodemus, book 1 *Antiq.*: These *for* Heracles...; others read Sophas. From this Eustathius should be corrected, unless it pleases one to write Sophas. Pererius writes, however, that this contains a very significant and most absurd error in Chronology; for as all agree, Heracles died less than thirty years before the Trojan War, which war occurred in the principate of Samson, or not long after that time; wherefore these grandsons of Abraham preceded Heracles by more than six hundred years, as Eusebius proves by his authority in the preface of his *Chronicon*. But Pererius, willing or unwilling, suggests this very significant and absurd error in Chronology to us, who, positing a single Heracles, thinks he is not ineloquently refuting Cleodemus, Alexander Polyhistor, Josephus, and consequently our Eustathius. That the words of Cleodemus are of the greatest authority is evident from the fact that he composed his history by the testimony of such great men, in imitation of Moses the lawgiver of the Jews. That author would never have strayed from Mosaic statements or traditions. Nor is there any doubt that Heracles, the son of Zeus and Alcmene, who sailed with the Argonauts and conquered Troy, and to whom the universal ambition of the Greeks attributed the deeds of all others who have been adorned with such a name, and who came to posterity with a fame for strength and fortitude, preceded the Trojan War by one generation; and that Eusebius spoke of him in his *Chronicon* when he was speaking of the deeds of the Greeks, and those whose memory was flourishing; for if he had spoken of another Heracles, his argument would collapse. It is established that in history there have been several Heracles. Varro counts forty-four, Cicero six, Diodorus, book IV, posits three: The first, the Egyptian, whose virtue was greatest, and whom Osiris, because he was strong in body...

^A and knew those who longed for his name, put in charge of his great army. Having traveled through a large part of the world, he set up a pillar in Libya, and preceded Hercules the son of Alcmene by more than a thousand years. Servius also makes four Herculeses in *Aeneid* VIII: the Tyrinthian, the Argive, the Theban, and the Libyan. Although there is no consensus on the number among them, this one thing is certain: that the Egyptian Hercules, or even the Libyan one, preceded by many centuries the Hercules of the Greeks of whom Eusebius speaks; so much so that he could be equal in age to the grandsons of Abraham; for the reckoning of the times fits together in this way, nor shall we unreasonably condemn the authors who speak of the expedition of the grandsons of Abraham together with Hercules.

Col. 765, lin. 22. *Jacob having snatched away.* Alexander Polyhistor from Demetrios in Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, book IX: Demetrios says that Jacob, when he was seventy-five years old, fled to Haran in Mesopotamia, having been sent by his parents because of the secret hatred of his brother Esau, because he had received the blessing of his father, who thought he was Esau, and in order that he might take a wife from there. Jacob therefore set out for Haran of Mesopotamia, having left behind his father Isaac, who was one hundred and thirty-seven years old, while he himself was seventy-seven. Having stayed there for seven years, he took the two daughters of Laban the mother's brother as wives, Leah and Rachel, being eighty-four years old.

Ibid., lin. 25. *The two daughters.* Faustus the Manichaean objected to this polygamy as a great crime against the holy patriarch Jacob in the most impudent language. Augustine replies to him in book XXII, chapter 47, defending Jacob from the slander: "When it was the custom, it was not a crime; and now it is a crime because it is not the custom. For some sins are against nature, others against custom, others against precepts. Since these things are so, what finally is the crime that is objected against the holy man Jacob regarding his having had several wives at once? If you consult nature, he did not use those women for the sake of lasciviousness, but for the sake of procreation. If custom, at that time and in those lands this was practiced. If precept, it was forbidden by no law. But now why is it a crime if someone does this, except that it is not permitted by custom or law? Whoever despises these two things, even if he were able to use several women solely for the sake of begetting, he sins nonetheless and violates human society itself, for which the procreation of children is necessary." Augustine writes similar things in his book III *On Christian Doctrine*, chapter 12, as do Jerome in epistle 83 to Oceanus and Theodoret in question 84 on Genesis.

Ibid., lin. 27. *He desired.* Thomas Anglicus, in chapter XXVIII of Genesis, clears Jacob’s love of its fault in three ways different from that which Eustathius maintains, and makes it blameless; see him.

Ibid., lin. 31. *Having met her, he kissed her.* Josephus, book I, chapter 19, where he relates this history, having embraced ^B other things that Scripture narrates, does not attribute them to Jacob but to Rachel. "But she, from memory, as is the habit of the young when they meet, and having been informed by her father about the matters concerning Rebecca, and about her parents..."

Ibid., lin. 56. *Children are born.* Regarding the birth of the sons of Jacob, and the time, and the stay with Laban, and the descent, there is more—although in some things different from the Sacred Scriptures—in Alexander Polyhistor from Demetrios in Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, book IX.

Ibid., lin. 41. *Who are also the Idumaeans.* Josephus, *Antiquities*, book II, chapter 1, narrates these same things thus: "But Esau, having ceded the Hebronite lands to his brother, dwelt in Seir, and from there he came to Idumaea, having thus named his country. He was named Adom for such a reason, having obtained the title. Hunger-stricken from a hunt once and from the toil of the chase, he returned, being still a boy in age. Having found his brother having prepared a pottage reddish in color for his meal, and for this reason desiring it all the more, he asked him to provide it for his food. And he, using his hunger as an ally, forced his brother to sell his birthright for it. And he, carried away by hunger, ceded the birthright to him with oaths. Then, because of the redness ^C of the food, he is called Adom by his contemporaries, having been nicknamed in jest. For the Hebrews call the red *Adom*. And he named the country thus. But the Greeks, for the sake of greater decorum, named it Idumaea." The name was therefore imposed on the whole race from Esau, whom the Greeks call Idumaeans. Strabo, book XVI, therefore errs, having affirmed that they were of Nabataean origin and driven out by civil strife in their homeland. Stephanus in *On Cities* errs, writing that they were born from a certain son of Semiramis, just as the Jews were from another of her sons, Judah. The Rabbis also rave, along with Abenezra, who call Rome Edom, and the Roman pontiff an Edomite monk.

Ibid., lin. 44. *But later Syrians.* We previously hinted that the region of Syria, most noble in Asia, is confused with Assyria by the authors. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks of it in book XXIII: "This side of the rivers is the province of noble Assyria, famous for its celebrity and magnitude, as well as its manifold fertility, and spread wide among peoples and large villages; formerly both copious [and prosperous], it surrendered to a single name, and now is all called Syria." See more on it in Eustathius’s commentary on Dionysius ^D *On the Situation of the World*, Abraham Ortelius, and others.

Ibid., lin. 46. *But Esau—wives.* Delrio and others have noted that the Hebrews were accustomed to having many names, and that great darkness arises in the genealogies from this, while one thing is posited in one place, and another in another, which some not considering despair of reconciling this catalog with 1 Chronicles 1. Which...

custom also obtained among women. Cyril therefore follows, and Procopius, who observe that the wives of Esau and their parents are called by other names in Genesis and Chronicles. For what ^A is here called Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, there is called Judith the daughter of Beeri; and what is there called Basemath the daughter of Elon, in this place is Oholibamah the daughter of Anah; what is here called Basemath the daughter of Ishmael, is there named Mahalath. That this happened, we shall note below regarding the father of Moses.

Col. 765, line 54. *To Seir opos.* Not compelled by the arms of Jacob, but by God’s assent, and of his own accord, so that the descendants of Jacob might freely possess the land of Canaan. Esau had indeed departed earlier into Seir, but not with the intention of completely abandoning Canaan, which is why he had returned with his entire family. But on account of the multitude of his flocks and the narrowness of the pastures, he changed his mind and returned to where he had come from. See August. *Quaest.* 119.

Col. 768, line 6. *En ois en kai.* Josephus, *Antiq.* bk. 2: "For Amalek was born to him of a concubine named Thamna. These inhabited Idumea, [the region] called Gobolitis, and that which was called Amalekitis from Amalek." For Idumea, having become large at that time, then lost the name of its whole [territory], and kept in its parts the designations derived from its inhabitants.

Ibid., line 19. *Hos heuren en te.* This place of Scripture, to which Eustathius referred, is variously understood by various people, nor can its meaning be grasped from the difficulty of the Hebrew word. Having left aside, however, the explanations of others, which Eugubinus in his *Recognition of the Pentateuch* puts forth too boldly regarding this passage, I will remark: he affirms that Jerome, as well as the Septuagint Interpreters, disagree with the Hebrew truth. For he thinks that in Jerome’s time, for *Jemin*, which signifies "many," the codices which Jerome used had either *Majim*, that is "waters," or *Jamin*, that is "seas." But there is no reason that can be given for why he would translate it as "hot springs" from the Hebrew. Then he reproaches the Septuagint Interpreters because they retained the Hebrew word *Jemin* in this place as if it were the proper name of a person, like Jacob or Isaac, rendering the passage: "This is Anah, who found *Jamin* in the desert while he was feeding ^D the beasts of his father," which Eustathius followed, retaining the same [interpretation] in this place.

Ibid., line 16. *Meth’ hon Iobab.* Jobab, of whom mention is made here, many have handed down to have been Job, although Lyranus and Oleaster affirm the opposite, and that he was not the son of Esau, as Aristeas reported—who wrote the history of the Jews in Eusebius Caesariensis, *De Praepar. Evang.* bk. 9, last chapter—but that he was of the stock and progeny of Esau, write Athanasius in his *Synopsis*, Chrysostom *Hom. 2 On Patience (Job)*, Augustine *De Civitate Dei* bk. 18, cap. 47. Theodoret feels the same in *Quaest. 92 on Genesis*, and Gregory the Great at the beginning of his *Commentary on Job*. To these fathers add also those whom Jerome enumerates ^A in his epistle 126 to Evagrius, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius Caesariensis, Eusebius Emesenus, Apollinarius, Eustathius. Jerome, in *Hebraic Traditions on Genesis*, cap. 22, considers him not to be of the line of Esau but born of the root of Nahor, whom Rupert follows in his *Commentary on Genesis* bk. 6, the *Historia Scholastica* cap. 58, and Philip the Presbyter, who wrote on this prophet shortly after Jerome, says thus: "Cus and Bus were the sons of Nahor, the brother of Abraham, according to the faith of the book of Genesis, born of Milcah, the sister of Sarah: it seems credible that in the land which is named after the name of his parents, that holy man dwelt: and that he was rather of the generation of Nahor, not born of the origin of Esau, as some suspect by an uncertain opinion." Those three kings, however, were of the generation of Esau. And Jerome hands down that Eliphaz, whom Adah bore to Esau, was the one whom Job himself mentions; if this is so, it is necessary that Job lived with the great-grandsons of Abraham. Philo, Suidas, and the Chaldaic Paraphrase make the generations of Jacob from his wife Dinah. The Septuagint prefers him to be from the descendants of Abraham, the fourth from Esau. Cajetan, on the first chapter of Job, concludes that nothing is certain about his roots.

Ibid., line 34. *Hoi de huioi Iakob*. Justin the historian, book 36, narrating the history of Joseph briefly, writes: "But Israel made him more famous to his elders by the happy increase of ten sons. For he handed down the people divided into ten kingdoms to his sons, and called all of them Jews from the name of Judah, who had departed after the division; and he ordered his memory to be cultivated by all. His portion had come to all. Joseph was the youngest in age among the brothers: whom his brothers, fearing his excellent wit, secretly seized and sold to foreign merchants. Being carried by them into Egypt, when he had perceived magical arts there with his skilled talent, he was shortly very dear to the king himself. For he was both most sagacious in prodigies, and first established the understanding of dreams; and nothing of divine or human law seemed hidden from him, etc." But this author sinned in many things in few words. For there were twelve sons of Jacob, besides one daughter. The youngest born was Benjamin, not Joseph. Joseph was very far from magic arts and the study of them; but, gifted with a certain peculiar grace of the Holy Spirit, he had accomplished those things.

Ibid., line 37. *To Pentaphe*. To the prince, or prefect of the cooks. Thus Philo in his book *On Joseph*; Josephus in *Antiquities* bk. 1, Ambrose in his book *On Joseph*, and others. Some have handed down that the Hebrew word signifies a prefect of the military. Others, both. Pererius, lest the Septuagint Interpreters be seen to have erred by rendering it thus, says *archimagiros* signifies all these things. But when we hear: "You say, therefore, the Septuagint Interpreters erred in this place, who translated it as *archimagiros*, that is, prince of the cooks? Not at all. For the word *archimagiros* properly signifies the prince of the slaughtered: for *mageuein*, Jerome translating, is in Latin, to slaughter." But the name of the slaughtered...

can be understood in three ways. ^A Either they are the slayers of men in war, such as soldiers, and in this sense the Latin interpreter translates it "master of the soldiers"; or they are the slayers of men for their crimes, as executors and ministers of public justice, which interpretation the Hebrews and many of our own mentioned above have followed; or they are the slayers of animals for cooking and eating—that is, butchers and cooks: an exposition upon which Philo, Josephus, and Ambrose have insisted. Since, therefore, the word *archimagiros*, which the Septuagint Translators used, admits these three significations and interpretations, the translation of the Septuagint Translators can most fittingly be adapted to our Latin reading; especially since Saint Jerome affirms that in most places Holy Scripture commemorates *archimagiros* for "masters of the army." But a doubt still remains, not to be despised: this prince or prefect of Pharaoh is said by the testimony of letters to have been a eunuch, and such is the common opinion of the Fathers, who hold that it was possible for him to have had a wife, by whose feigned accusations Joseph was cast into prison and risked his own life. I pass over here the trifles of the Hebrews, who reached such a reach of ignorance as to say that this prince was in no way a eunuch, but that he took a wife while whole in all his members, with whom he lived happily and pleasantly. But [they say that] he was enticed by the charming and fair beauty of the purchased Joseph, and attempted I know not what against Joseph himself, and therefore by the just judgment of God was he rendered impotent in those members, as if a eunuch, and therefore is called a eunuch by Scripture, even though he had a wife. Some said that that woman was not his wife, but only held charge of domestic affairs. Others, even if he were a eunuch, still say he used that woman as his lawful wife. Theodore in the *Catena on Genesis*: ^B "A eunuch or *spadon* can adopt orphans alone. For this is forbidden to the castrated and the *thlibiai*. For a *spadon* might perhaps beget children. How, if the *archimagiros* was a eunuch, did he have a wife?" For the most part, they call both eunuchs and those who have been castrated by the same name; but it was not absurd that a man, even being a eunuch, should have a wife in his house looking after domestic matters. "How, having said that Potiphar was a eunuch, did he say he had a wife? I think, then, that one of two things: either he was called a eunuch abusively because of his benevolence, or he truly had his parts excised, yet had the woman in the rank of a wife, which indeed we have known to happen often in our own time." And again: "If Potiphar is a eunuch, how is he found having a wife? But the Syrian uses one designation for both the *spadon* and the faithful man to his masters, but the Hebrew [uses it] for a true eunuch, and this from his faithfulness, since the race of eunuchs is wont to be trusted most with the more precious of possessions, and even with the safety of kings. And it is not wonderful, whereas Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob were 'christs' [anointed ones]. For it says, 'Touch not my christs.' And Cyrus the Persian is also called 'christ.' Thus, therefore, the *archimagiros* also had the designation of the *spadon* at that time." ^C *Of the archimagiros of Pharaoh.* "After him arose over Egypt a Pharaoh, also called Marecho, having ruled for years, as they say, fifty. From him the kings descended from his race were called Pharaohs. And she who was praised was taken by Pharaoh. For so the Egyptians name their kings, they interpret." ^D *Ibid.* Pharaoh's name was not a proper noun, but common to all the kings of the Egyptians, who used it for the dignity of the king as a royal title, just as among the Romans [they were called] Augustus and emperors, as Eusebius hands down from the books of Manetho, priest of the Egyptians, and again: "Sesostris, to wit," And Africanus: "the wife, to wit, of Abraham, Pharaoh took." More explicitly, Jerome, book IX, Commentary on Ezekiel: "But that which must most of all be inquired is whether he is the same Pharaoh who is named in Exodus, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and in the Song of Songs, or one and another; it seems to me not to be one. But among the Egyptians this word signified royal dignity, just as among the Romans their emperors are called Caesars and Augusti from the first Gaius Caesar, and from his adopted son Octavian, who was later named Augustus; just as also among the Syrians [they were called] Antiochi, among the Parthians Arsacidae, among the Philistines Abimelech, and after Alexander in Egypt kings were called Ptolemies down to Cleopatra, who being defeated at Actium, Egypt was made a Roman province. Therefore, for the present, the speech of the Lord is against any one king of Egypt whatsoever." The cause of this appellation is thus

^A expressed by John of Antioch in his *Archaeologia*: that a certain king of Egypt conquered many of the neighboring peoples and reformed those who were given to brigandage into a more humane state, and the remaining kings of Egypt were called Pharaohs in his honor. See also Josephus, book XVIII of the *Antiquities*, who noted many things concerning the name of Pharaoh, although they may seem to some to be ill-connected, false, and justly deserving to be so considered. Others said that "Pharaohs" was so called as though "Pharones," from the island of Pharos in the region of Alexandria, formerly called Carpathos, where Proteus reigned; but this opinion collapses by its own emptiness.

Col. 768, line 45. Some have supposed that Thamar was the daughter of the priest Melchizedek, because Judas, having caught her in prostitution, as is below, ordered her to be burned, not stoned. For there was a law among the Hebrews, which Moses later repeated, that the daughter of a priest who had prostituted herself should be burned, while others were to be stoned (Lev. XX and XXI). But regarding Thamar and her kin, condition, and customs, Philo speaks accurately in his book *On Nobility*: "This nobility not only god-fearing men but even women zealously sought, having unlearned the ignorance that is the companion of the worship of man-made things, and having been instructed in the knowledge of the monarchy by which the world is governed. Thamar was a young woman from Palestine-Syria, raised in her own city which was polytheistic, filled with idols and statues, and in general with images. But since, as if out of deep darkness, she was able to catch a brief glimmer of truth through the danger of death, she defected to piety, caring little for living unless she were to live well. And she referred 'living well' to nothing else but the care and supplication of the one Cause. And although she was married in turn to two brothers, both of whom were wicked—to the first as a lawful wife, and to the latter, who had a claim by law, because the former had left no offspring—nevertheless, having kept her own life unstained, she was able to obtain the praise appropriate to the good, and to become the beginning of nobility for all those after her. But she, even if she was of another race, was nonetheless free and, perhaps, from free and not obscure people."

Ibid. *And because of wickedness.* ^B *He poured it out upon the ground.* *And having sent.* *Concerning fugitives.* ^C *Of the undefiled Mary.* The Word of God, and His Spirit, being created things, entered into Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron, and she gave birth, without seed, to Jesus the Christ, a prophet and a servant who had come to be of God. I anathematize the babbling of Muhammad, which says that the Lord and God Jesus Christ was born of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron, without seed, from the Word of God and the Spirit. What man would have dreamt up this ignorance?

^D Ibid. *Quæ fuerit haec malitia* (What this malice or iniquity of Her was, neither does Scripture express, nor can anything certain be determined because of the various opinions of authors). Augustine, Book XXII *Against Faustus*, ch. 84, signifies that his sin was one of cruelty and savagery. Others conjectured that it was a sin against nature, which he committed by abusing his wife outside the female vessel. There is a tradition of the Hebrews that Thamar was a most beautiful woman, and that Her was desperately in love with her. In order that he might enjoy her untouched beauty the longer, knowing that beauty and feminine charm fade through pregnancies and childbirths, he would shed his seed outside her vessel whenever he had relations with Thamar, so that she could not become pregnant. Cajetan followed this, and John Cassian does not seem to have differed from him in his *Collation* 8, ch. 11, where he speaks of the sin of Onan, for it is likely that the same was his sin. All this history of the marriage of Thamar and the prostitution of Judas is narrated at length in the *Testament of the Patriarchs*, ch. 3.

Ibid., line 50. *He poured it out upon the ground.* Augustine, Book XXII *Against Faustus*, ch. 84, says that Her was worse than Onan; that the former was malicious and savage, and sinned by harming, whereas the latter sinned by refusing to be profitable and helpful. To Pererius, the opposite seems more probable, since Scripture calls Her "wicked," but calls Onan "detestable," because he committed a detestable act, which is a mark of a graver crime. Then, too, Onan did not want to repent from the example of his brother's punishment, nor did he shrink away, deterred either from a similar or a greater sin. Furthermore, Her sinned by the disordered lust of venereal pleasure; Onan, by the malicious envy of his brother's good, so that his firstborn might not be assigned to his brother.

Col. 769, line 12. *And having sent.* You have an elegant allegory of this history in Philo, in the book under that title.

Ibid., line 35. *Of the undefiled Mary.* The most foolish Mahometans make Mary, the most holy one who gave birth to Christ God, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Euthymius, in his *Panoplia*: *And that the Word...* And in the order which is kept for those who convert from the Saracens to the faith of the Christians: "Who would have imagined this, if not Muhammad and his father the devil? A space of two thousand years separates Mary the sister of Moses from the Mary who gave birth to Christ." Nor is Frederick Sylburgius any less to be reproached, who, in his notes on the *Saracenica*, holding wrong views on the adoration of images, denies that adoration is due to the blessed Virgin Mary, doing so by certain passages of Saint Epiphanius which were poorly understood by him. For he, being addicted to the Calvinist sect, pours out poison covertly and slyly in those notes, just as he had done previously concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist; and he is not afraid to be blind even in the light and to be openly convicted of falsehood. But while he scatters poisons that infect, he cares little if he reveals his own ignorance in understanding writers. See the book itself, p. 136 and 138. And if this is not to distort and twist the Fathers and their opinions, what is? I have noted these things so that the reader may peruse those notes cautiously.

Ibid. *Who is altogether beautiful, and admits no stain at all.* Into her, humble and devoted, we have sung this, though it be unadorned, it is yet full of affection. We do not think it will be ungrateful to you, reader.

NOTES ON EUSTATHIUS' HEXAEMERON

I. Etna once cast fountains of fire upon the Olympian seat, and poured forth into the ether and the deep. The flame, rolling along, consumed whatever the earth brings forth in the fields, and whatever flourishes on the trees, and this was the fuel of the fire. The lion fled. Flee, winged ones. Fleeing the light, he cared for gold and life. One alone, as it were, bore his dear burden like a parent, and he saved him, contending through the flames of death. A miracle this: the pious son rescued his father; the son saved his parent, while the fire sank back from the pious pair. The boundaries of death lay for all, and a mighty fate, nor was there any defense for earth-born men, nor any escape from the wickedness of destruction, but you, O Mary, surpassed the boast of ruin, as of old, [when you took away] the shameful bonds of chaos. For having conceived, you gave birth within the heavy world to your own Creator, by whom the fire of death did not subdue you.

II. In the midst of the subterranean depths of Trinacria, a chasm was spread out, which held the water of the Palici. Accessible to the [human] race, and to those whose strength creeps into their joints; and in nothing were the gates of the age barred, and responsible was the fate; it offered death to those inclining [toward it], and the age became for those passing away. Never did the Virgin, though weary, lull her feet to rest, but unceasingly she trod the holy path. Alone, not having inclined to the mournful evils of parents, nor by her own [doing] did she escape on earth the bond of death.

III. Upon the highest peaks, the Chimera of Phaselis leaps from the summit, and wraps the city about. Or a swift, unvanquished whirlwind of fire wanders through the divine ether. You touched it with water, and though it shone more brightly when bathed, it was quenched, burdened by weight. The weight of the sin of Mary was cast far away, nor did it stain the most holy image of God. By a spring of graces the light increased, which the Creator bestowed, and she lived immortally, turning aside fate.

^{A B C D} Reliqua hæc nostra una cum Sophronii Hierosolymitani, Sophronii monachi Iatrosophista, Eliæ Syncelli, Michaelis Syncelli, Ignatii grammatici diaconi, elegantissimis, piissimis et melitissimis carminibus, in eamdem Deiparam, aliosque sanctos carminibus propediem edemus, si ita Deus annuerit.

Col. 772, lin. 10. *Zητητέον δὲ ἡμῖν.* Vetus fuit dubitatio de Christi genealogia ab evangelistis tradita, quanam ratione quem Matthæus nominat Jacob parentem Joseph, Lucas appellet Heli; recentiores nonnulli, inter eos Benedictus Arias Montanus in Lucæ cap. III Elucidationibus, Heli eumdem esse putant et Joachim dictum. Lucidus de emendatione temporum idem ait, subditque Joachim hunc fuisse patrem Virginis, socerum Josephi patremque ejus, quod, sicut habetur ex Philone generi loco filiorum haberentur. Africanus tamen apud Eusebium, Hist. lib. I, cap. 9, et Nicephorum lib. I, cap. 11, cui Hieronymus, aliique Patres astipulati sunt, eum ita determinavit, uterinos fuisse fratres Heli et Jacob, et cum Heli absque prole discessisset, Jacobum illi semen suscitasse, et genuisse Josephum, cui natura filius erat, lege vero, Heli; et ita utriusque filius erat. Ματθὰν ὁ ἀπὸ Σολομῶντος ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰακώβ. Ματθὰν ἀποθανόντος, Μελχὶ ὁ ἀπὸ Νάθαν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γυναικὸς ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἡλί. Ομομήτριοι ἄρα ἀδελφοὶ Ἡλὶ καὶ Ἰακώβ. Ἡλὶ ἀτέκνου ἀποθανόντος, ὁ Ἰακὼβ ἀνέστησεν αὐτῷ σπέρμα γεννήσας τὸν Ἰωσὴφ, κατὰ φύσιν μὲν ἑαυτῷ, κατὰ νόμον δὲ τῷ Ἡλί. Οὕτως ἀμφοτέρων υἱὸς ἦν Ἰωσήφ. Huic item opinioni laudatissimus, et Christianæ reipublicæ auspicatissimus Cæsar Baronius Apparatu in Annales ecclesiasticos magis tribuit, quam alteri recentiorum.

Ibid., lin. 31. *Ἰάκωβός τις.* Quisnam sit hic Jacobus, qui hæc de conceptione, nativitate, et rebus gestis beatæ Mariæ Virginis conscripsit, adhuc hæsito, cum et apud alios videam controversum. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca, et Joannes Heroldus in Orthodoxographis Jacobo apostolo fratri Domini cognomento Justo Hierosolymorum episcopo, cui et Epistola canonica uti genuinus fetus ascribitur, libellum hunc quem protevangelium appellant a Gullelmo Postello in linguam Latinam versum, et cum scholiis Theodori Bibliandri ab Oporino excussum tribuunt, præter omnem rationem. Baronius in Apparatu in Annales eccles., Sixtus Senensis, et alii maximæ æstimationis viri inter apocryphos rejiciunt multis rationibus, inter eas præcipua, quod absurdissimum illud contineat, Josephum et

^A Mary to have been accused of fornication and sacrilege, and by the decree of the priests to have been compelled together to drink the cup of reproof, by which Moses ordered the innocence of a woman suspected of adultery to be examined. Epiphanius the monk and presbyter, in his little book on the life of the blessed Virgin Mary, says that this James was a Jew, and that he lived in the same times as the Virgin; for he pronounces concerning him thus: "But even those who attempted [to write] and mentioned certain parts, not having rightly divided [the truth] concerning themselves, have become accusers, such as James the Hebrew, and Aphrodisianus the Persian, and some others, who, speaking only of her birth, immediately fell silent." Concerning her falling asleep, John of Thessalonica, having composed a widely celebrated discourse, eclipsed himself. And another John, having gilded himself with the title of Theologian, thereupon incurred the charge of falsehood against himself. Andrew of Jerusalem, bishop of Crete, having said a few things, and having rightly divided them, stopped the narrative in the order of a panegyric. And Athanasius of Alexandria, and Leo of Rome, having spoken concerning her, say that she was ignorant of the desire of a man, and all the holy orthodox synods bear witness to the same. As James the Hebrew, being present at that time, and writing the things concerning her, says that because the delivery was strange and changed in every way, being touched by the midwife, she was found a virgin, as before the birth; and Ruben the priest, having expanded upon this, was assured through Mary. These things, indeed, come from the first book of Enoch concerning the Watchers, although it is not right to pay full attention to apocryphal works, especially [for] the simpler ones, both because they contain certain hidden and untrodden things of ecclesiastical tradition, and because they have been corrupted by Jews and heretics. Nevertheless, even blessed Paul rarely used some citations from apocryphal works, as when he says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man," and the things following from the apocrypha of Elias. And again in the Epistle to the Galatians, from the Revelation of Moses: "Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." And in the Epistle to the Ephesians, from the so-called apocrypha of Jeremiah: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee." But these things have been said by us not for the liberty of those wishing to tamper with them indiscriminately—God forbid! For many have been harmed by believing in all of them; whence the holy Church of God, and the choir of our God-bearing Fathers, refrained from allowing them to be encountered, just as with the rest of Scripture. And we, for our part, have set forth the cited passages only in order to show the transgression of the Watchers, and the impiety of the giants, concerning whom the divine Moses also makes mention, and that the cosmic flood occurred because of them. ^B Beneficially, therefore, was it done with this author, since Eustathius, having omitted and cut away those things which could cause confusion, plucked only the useful things for the devout reader, and which are not inconvenient for one studious of the Virgin; nay, the authority of so great a Father adds weight and authority to it, especially since there is nothing of those things which are related here which would be contrary to the Church or its authority; rather, everything is consistent with the testimonies and sayings of other Fathers and historians. And I am the more readily led to this opinion, since I see that it is not praised by our Eustathius as a work of the apostle James, but of some other person, which is most clearly signified by that addition, "a certain James." For if he had thought it to be the apostle's, he would never have been silent; and, what is of no less importance, Gregory of Nyssa, in treating of the birth of the Virgin, appears to have borrowed many things from this little book without naming the author, even though he rejects it among the apocrypha; his words are found in Symeon Metaphrastes, *On the Nativity and Education of the Blessed Virgin Mary*, etc. Which the interpreter rendered very badly: "I have heard an arcane and certain occult history putting forward such narrations about her, for there is not in the histories an arcane and occult history." I believe this to be the James whom Origen mentions in his *Homilies on Matthew*.

On the Genealogy

[Ibid., line 32]. "A rich man." Joachim, the Father of the Virgin, both rich and childless, in great sorrow fled to God, as Gregory of Nyssa tells it in his sermon: "He was eminent in his life according to the law, and the father of the Virgin was known among the most excellent, yet he grew old childless in life, because his spouse was not suited for childbearing. Now there was a certain honor from the law for mothers, in which the barren did not share. Therefore, she also imitates the accounts concerning the mother of Samuel, and, being within the courtyard of the holy ones, she becomes a suppliant to God that she might not fall outside the blessing of the law—not sinning in any way against the law—but that she might become a mother and dedicate the one born to God. He was eminent in his life according to the law..."

[Col. 775, line 13]. "And having known the woman." By this the error of the Collyridians is refuted, who [claimed] the Mother of God...

to be entirely devoid of human nature and only a participant in the divine, whereas from this we have the intercourse of Joachim with Anna, and from it the generated and sprung-forth Virgin. Certainly, that saying of the angel to Joachim in the desert, "Your wife has conceived," before he came home, is not read in this narrative; indeed, the direct opposite is gathered quite openly. From which it is manifest that the book was corrupted by heretics in the time of Epiphanius, which perhaps had been preserved incorrupt and intact in the time of Eustathius.

^A Col. 773, lin. 14. *And he calls her.* Gregory of Nyssa: "Being strengthened by the Holy Spirit for the grace which she asked for, when she gave birth to a child, she named her Mariam, so that even through the name the God-given quality of the grace might be signaled." And having already brought the girl to maturity, so that she no longer needed to attend to the breast, she gave her up to God, and fulfilled the promise, and brought her to the temple."

Notes on Eustathius' Hexaemeron

^B Ibid., lin. 16. *And when she was.* Evodius, Bishop of Antioch, according to Nicephorus, lib. 11, cap. 3: "When she was three years old, she was presented in the temple; there she spent eleven years in the Holy of Holies, then she was handed over by the hands of the priests to Joseph for guardianship, in whose care, when she had spent four months, she received that joyful news from the angel. She brought forth the Light of that world, being in her fifteenth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of December." That the Virgin, when three years old, was offered to God, besides Eustathius and Evodius, is also the opinion of Gregory [of Nyssa] *On the Nativity of Christ*, John Damascene *On the Orthodox Faith*, chapter 13, Andrew of Crete in his sermon *On the Mother of God*, Germanus in his sermon *On the Presentation*, George of Nicomedia *On the Presentation*, Cedrenus in his *Compendium of History*, and others. It should be observed, too, that according to our Eustathius, the Virgin bore Christ much younger than Evodius and others would have it, with whom it is not the business of the present matter to deal.

^C Ibid., lin. 22. *Of the people.* Whether Joseph, the spouse of the most holy Virgin, was a bigamist or a celibate is an ancient question in the Catholic Church, debated to this day with various testimonies of the Fathers on both sides. A famous opinion among the Greeks, and indeed among some of the Latins, was that he was a bigamist and had had another wife before the Virgin.

A. Origen on Matthew, cap. 13; Epiphanius against the Antidicomarianites; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, lib. 1, cap. 1; Nicephorus, lib. 11, cap. 3, where he also reports Hippolytus as an author of the same opinion; Gregory of Nyssa, *On the Resurrection of Christ*, hom. 2; Euthymius on Matthew, cap. 12; Oecumenius on the Epistle to the Galatians, cap. 1; Theophylact on Matthew, cap. 13, and he repeats it in cap. 27; Hilary, *Commentary on Matthew*, can. 1; Ambrose in the *Epistle to the Galatians*, cap. 1, and Cajetanus in the same place. Jerome against Helvidius, Augustine, *Sermon on the Nativity of the Lord*, Bede on chapter 6 of Mark, and other more recent [writers] who defend the second opinion as more probable and accepted, thought the opposite. However, the rashness and impudence of Gerard Vossius towards the holy Fathers must not be passed over in silence (for why should I call this act liberty?), who dared to call the first assertion not sufficiently pious nor orthodox, portentous, somewhat impudent, and less cautious—as human frailty sometimes produces, for even the most outstanding and learned men occasionally nod—to have been thus spoken or written. And therefore, he ascribes to Gregory Thaumaturgus the sermon on the Annunciation of the most holy Mother of God Mary, which begins "Again joy, again messengers of freedom," [and] which is frequently published under the name of John Chrysostom, and by Lipomanus, David Hoeschelius, and others—[assigning it to him] because of this opinion about Joseph and his prior domestic situation, on the grounds that it is unworthy of Chrysostom. Consider, reader, the man's mind, averse and perverse: the assertion which he deems worthy of so many and such great Greek and Latin Fathers, he calls unworthy of Chrysostom. If to assert this is not orthodox, but rather little pious, portentous, somewhat impudent, and less cautious in Chrysostom, how is it pious, orthodox, prudent, cautious, and in no way portentous in Gregory? I, that I might not appear injurious to so many Fathers, would return to Vossius his own words; but what of it? Such is the custom that now prevails; such is the servitude today, indeed, no measure can be held.

^D Ibid., lin. 33. *And the high priest.* Gregory of Nyssa: "The priests, in the meanwhile, by the likeness of Samuel, were rearing the child in the Holy [of Holies]; but when she had grown, they deliberated what they might do so that they might not sin against God by that sacred body. For to subject her to the law of nature and to enslave her through marriage to a man seemed to them of all things the most absurd. Indeed, it was considered outright sacrilege for a man to become master of a divine offering. Since by the laws, the husband was appointed to have authority over the woman. Moreover, for women to associate with the priests within the inner sanctuaries, and to be seen in the Holy [of Holies], was neither lawful, and at the same time, was not consistent with the dignity of the matter. And as they were deliberating about these things, there came to them from God a suggestion to give her to a man in the name of betrothal; but that this man should be such as to be suitably fit for the guardianship of her virginity. Joseph was therefore found, such as the account sought, from the same tribe and...

^A kindred to the Virgin, and he betroths the maiden to himself by the counsel of the priests. And the union was only up to the betrothal. Then the Virgin was initiated into the mysteries by Gabriel. And having left [him]. In which also the [...]. Epiphanius has similar things *Against the Antidicomarianites*, and elsewhere.

Col. 773, lin. 35. *Others relate this matter thus.* The betrothed Virgin is returned to her parents, who take her home and prepare the things necessary for future nuptials. Betrothals of this sort were among the Hebrews of no less importance than the weddings themselves, as Philo is the author, if indeed in a solemn assembly of friends the names of the husband and wife were written on tablets, and if the bride, remaining in her father's house, had committed any offense, she was punished just as a married woman; so that she would be stoned if found guilty of adultery. But [they say] that Mary received the message from the angel while she was still dwelling in her father's house.

Col. 776, lin. 5. *Similar reasons for the death of Zacharias* are read in Peter, Bishop of Alexandria and martyr, in his *Ecclesiastical Canons*, which the Sixth Synod received and approved, cap. 1, in Theodore Balsamon. ^B Origen has the same, *In Matth. tract.* 26, Gregory Nyssen, Basil, and others. And Jerome understands this *In Matth., cap. XXIII, lib. IV*: Others wish Zacharias, the father of John, to be understood from certain dreams of the Apocrypha, approving the fact that he was slain because he preached the advent of the Savior. Since this lacks authority from the Scriptures, it is condemned with the same facility with which it is approved. Consult also Epiphanius, *De vit. et inter. Prophet.*, cap. 23.

Ibid., lin. 50. *Having discerned dreams.* Justin, *Histor., lib. XXXVI*: Joseph was the youngest in age among the brothers: whom his brothers, fearing his excellent genius, secretly intercepted and sold to foreign merchants. By whom he was deported into Egypt; and since he had perceived magical arts there with a skillful mind, he was soon dear to the king himself. For he was most sagacious of prodigies, and he was the first to establish the understanding of dreams, and nothing of divine or human law seemed unknown to him; so that he even provided for a sterility of the fields many years before; and all Egypt would have perished from famine had not the king, at his warning, ordered by edict that grain be saved for many years; and such were the proofs of him that responses seemed to be given not by a man, but by God. But what else was to be expected from a man alien to the Christian faith and deprived of the light of faith, than that he should refer prodigies performed by divine virtue and impulse to human superstitions and the apparitions of demons? Yet he himself confesses the truth, though ignorant of the Truth. O the power of truth, the companion of human reason! That which was of divine power he attributes to it unwillingly. Others attribute interpretations of dreams to others: Philo the Biblical to Abraham; Pliny, lib. VII, to Amphitryon, the son of Deucalion; Clement of Alexandria to the Termissian people of Lycia.

Ibid., lin. 51. Tertullian, *in Scorpiaco, cap. 8*: Zacharias is slaughtered within the altar and the temple, marking the perennial stains of his blood on the stones; and Baronius writes that he himself once fell upon an ancient manuscript codex placed in the Vatican Library, *On the Pilgrimage to the Holy Places*: in which the same facts concerning the blood of Zacharias, permanently adhering to the stones of the temple, were consigned with certain faith. The *Itinerary of Bordeaux* likewise: On the marble before the altar is the blood of Zacharias, spilled—you would say—today; the very footprints of the soldiers who slaughtered him are there, fixed as if in wax over the whole area. Hippolytus of Thebes in his *Chronicle* speaks differently about the death of Zacharias; for he says that while he was performing sacred rites in the customary manner, he was slaughtered by thrown stones, and his body was snatched away and hung in the valley of Josaphat. ^C Jerome attributes this to the simplicity of the faithful rather than to the truth of history, *In Matth. XXIII*: The simpler brethren, showing red rocks among the ruins of the temple and altar, or at the exits of the gates that lead to Siloam, think they are stained with the blood of Zacharias. We do not condemn an error ^D which descends from hatred of the Jews and piety of faith.

Ibid., lin. 38. *Another story.* Cyril of Alexandria, *Against the Anthropomorphites*: being, as it were, in his power to create a new birth, which will not take away from the one who has become a mother the state of being a virgin. For this reason he did not set her apart in the temple of the space of the virgins. Now this place was the interval between the inner sanctuary and the altar. Since they heard that the King of creation was about to come forth for a human birth in an economical manner, in fear that they would not be subject to the King, they arrange for the priest, who testifies to these things concerning the [child]bearing, to perform the rituals at the very altar.

Col. 777, lin. 33. *Each thing previously.* The final words of Jacob to his sons, spoken in his approaching death, obtained the usage of being called blessings. But Ambrose, *lib. De benedict. patriarch.*, and Rufinus, *lib. ejusdem tituli*; and Theodoret, *quæst. ult. in Genes.*, not without reason call those not blessings, but rather prophecies.

Ibid., lin. 35. Jerome, *Quæst. Hebraicis in Genes.*, explains the words of Jacob thus: Thou, Ruben, art my firstborn, greater among the children, and thou wast sitting according to the order of thy birth, and it was thy due to receive the inheritance which belonged by right to the firstborn, namely the priesthood and the kingdom. This indeed in bearing the burden, and in the prevailing strength [he...]

^A is spread. But, because you have sinned, and like water, which is not held by a vessel, you have been poured out by the impulse of pleasure, therefore I command you that you do not sin further, and that you be in the number of your brothers, paying the penalty for the sin, because you lost the order of the firstborn. For Reuben had slept with Bilhah, his father's wife, and therefore many have affirmed that after that time Jacob did not have relations with Bilhah. However, Ambrose refutes this history as false and fabricated by the Hebrews, in his book *De benedict. Patriarch.*, ch. 2: The Jews, he says, think Jacob said this to Reuben because he had lain with his concubine Bilhah and had defiled his father's bed; but they are easily refuted. For this had been done before; but Jacob professed that he was going to speak not of things that had been done, but of things that were to come in the last days.

Col. 777, line 37. *And Reuben, having been overcome.* Isidore of Pelusium, in book II, epistle 48, insinuates that Reuben had leaped into his father's bed with a certain rabid fury, and therefore did not obtain the kingdom and the priesthood, although he was otherwise the firstborn, but that Levi, because of his holiness and piety, and because he had filled his hands with the blood of his kinsmen for the sake of divine honor, was gifted with the priesthood, and that Judah obtained the royal dignity because of his upright judgment and correct knowledge, and he concludes: For since many, hiding their own transgressions, condemn others; but this man condemned himself, and freed the one who was thought to have played the harlot from punishment; for this reason he was deservedly deemed worthy of the kingdom.

Ibid., line 53. *Having died.* He dies having lived in all one hundred and forty-seven years, having fallen short of none of his ancestors in piety toward God, and having obtained the reward which it was just for one who had been so good to receive. Josephus, in *Antiquities*, book II, says that the king having granted it to him, he carried his father's corpse to Hebron and buried it there sumptuously.

Col. 780, line 1. *And the terebinth.* Concerning its miraculous antiquity. Josephus, *De bello Judaico*, book V. A very large terebinth is shown six stades from the city, and they say the tree has remained from the creation until now. Jacob, displeased with the things done by Simeon and Levi in Shechem because of the defilement of their sister by the local inhabitants, having buried in Shechem the gods he was carrying beside the rock under the wonderful terebinth, which is honored by the neighbors until now in honor of the patriarchs, moved to Bethel. Beside the trunk of this terebinth there was an altar, upon which the inhabitants of the region offered their prayers during the festivals of the country. There was an altar, upon which the inhabitants of the region offered both burnt offerings and hecatombs during the festivals. ^B Restore these last words, which are corrupt in Africanus, from Eustathius as follows:

Ibid., line 14. *Various sufferings.* Josephus, *Antiq.* book II. The Egyptians, being delicate and lazy toward labors, and weaker than others in pleasures, and indeed also in greed, happened to be terribly disposed toward the Hebrews out of envy of their prosperity. For seeing the race of the Israelites flourishing, and already bright with a multitude of wealth because of their virtue and natural aptitude for labor, they assumed these things against them; and having taken forgetfulness through the length of time of the things they had well received from Joseph, and the kingdom having passed to another house, they terribly insulted the Israelites and devised various miseries for them. Philo, in his book *De vita Moysis*: The king of the country, as the nation was always increasing in population, fearing that the settlers, becoming more numerous, might contend with the natives for the power of rule with a stronger hand, devised unholy schemes to take away their strength; and he orders them to rear the females (since a woman is sluggish for war due to the weakness of her nature) but to destroy the males, so that they might not increase in the cities. Since a force abounding in men is a fortress difficult to capture and difficult to destroy. Eusebius in his *Chronicle* thinks this oppression began immediately from the death of Joseph and lasted 144 years; the Hebrews, at the death of Levi, and it lasted 116 years; Torniellus, at the beginning of the reign of Amenophis, and it lasted 106 years; Pererius, that it lasted 87 years; Cornelius a Lapide in the first chapter of Exodus, shortly before the birth of Moses, and it lasted 90 years, more or less, namely ten years before Moses, and 80 years while Moses was living, since Moses led the Hebrews out of it and out of Egypt in the 80th year of his life.

Ibid., line 19. *And one of those from...* Josephus has the same. There are also three other different causes, which the same author and Philo hint at in the preceding passages, for which the Egyptians afflicted the Jews. Fear, lest upon the onset of war they might join the enemies of the Egyptians; envy, because they saw them with numerous, beautiful, robust offspring, and endowed with other gifts of the mind; hatred conceived from the diversity of religion, character, and customs.

Ibid., line 20. *He signifies to Pharaoh.* Cajetan thinks he was of ^C not Egyptian, but Assyrian origin. Some, with Eusebius, say he was Mephres, whom Eusebius makes the fourth king of the eighteenth dynasty, which is that of the Politans. Others think he was Rameses, from the fact that the city of Rameses, which the Hebrews built by his order during this affliction, seems to have been named after him. Gerardus Mercator calls this king Armesesmianus, whom he says reigned 66 years, and began to reign five years before the birth of Moses. Torniellus says he was Amenophis, who is the seventh in the dynasty of the Politans; and some opine that this was Memnon.

Ibid., line 25. *Works for them.* Philo describes the bitter servitude of the Hebrews in his book *De vita Moysis*; Josephus, *Antiquit.* book II, ch. 5; Ezechiel the Tragedian in Eusebius, *De praeparat. evangelica*, book IX. Also, from excessive labor and heat, very many were seized and died of plague, whom the Egyptians threw out unburied. The works imposed by the Egyptians, first, to form mud into brick-

- ^{A B}rly, to build the cities of Pithom and Rameses; third, to lead the Nile into trenches to irrigate the fields and meadows of individuals, and to surround the trenches with ramparts. Josephus attributes the insane constructions of the Pyramids to the Hebrews. Artapanus: He treated the Jews badly; and first, he had them build Kessan, and establish the temple there, then construct the temple in Heliopolis. The manner of their tribulation was the sweat shed over the digging tools, long and unpaid brick-making, and indeed the raising of fortified cities for Pharaoh—that is, walled ones—or ones so wide and long that they seemed to be distinct from others, on account of the multitude of inhabitants. Pithom and Rameses were such, and other cities. And those things belonging to them.

Col. 780, line 31. Josephus, Philo, and others have similar things. Likewise Ezechielus in Eusebius: “Then he proclaims to the race of the Hebrews To cast the children of the Tarsian river into the deep-flowing current.”

Ibid., line 35. Abraham by name. In Hebrew, and in Latin Bibles, it is read Amram. The Greeks, by the rule of their orthography, wrote Amram, and others later with a smoother sound, as Demetrius [records] in Eusebius, *De praeparatione*, lib. IX; Epiphanius, who, to distinguish him from Abraham the patriarch, calls him the latter Abraham in the *Ancyrotos*: which he separated in this way because the name of both seemed to be the same.

Ibid. His wife. Not his daughter, but the granddaughter of Levi; not his aunt, but the cousin of Amram. Calvin therefore raves when he affirms that Moses was born of an incestuous marriage, just as he also most impudently accuses the parents of beastly inhumanity because of similar explanations regarding the offspring.

Ibid., line 57. And she hid him. Philo, *De vita Moysis*: The child, having been born, immediately displayed an appearance more noble than that of a commoner, so that his parents, as much as was possible, disregarded the tyrant's edicts. They say, indeed, that for three months consecutively he was nursed at home, escaping the notice of the many. For three months consecutively the parents hid and raised the child, who was of noble birth, natural affection overcoming the tyrannical cruelty. Here the mother who bore me hid me for three months, as she said.

When she saw him. Being afraid later that they might perish along with the child, making a vessel out of the local papyrus, they placed the child inside and exposed him by the banks of the river, which was marshy. She watched ^C as he was carried away by the sister of the child. Ezechielus... And she was not hidden. “She placed him, having put an ornament on me, Near the edge of the river into a deep marsh. Mariam my sister watched from near.”

Fusius has all these things. Ibid., line 41. The daughter of Pharaoh. The same things are read in Ezechielus, Philo, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, and others.

Ibid., line 44. Artapanus: It is wonderful how that author is blind in relating the history of the Hebrews and writes incoherent things; and I would dare say that he has committed as many errors as there are words. Their correction from the divine scriptures is ready at hand; nor is Justin the historian any sounder than Artapanus; he turns everything upside down, which, so that we would not be forced to repeat it too often, we have transcribed here once: Moses was the son of Joseph, whom, besides the inheritance of paternal knowledge, the beauty of his form also recommended. But when the Egyptians were suffering from scabies and vitiligo, warned by a response, they cast him out with the sick, lest the plague spread to more people, to the borders of Egypt. Therefore, having become the leader of the exiles, he stole the sacred things of the Egyptians: for which the Egyptians, seeking them with weapons, were forced by storms to return home. And so Moses, having retrieved his ancient Damascene fatherland, occupied Mount Sinai: where, exhausted with his people by a seven-day fast through the deserts of Arabia, when he had finally arrived, he consecrated the seventh day, called the Sabbath, to be a fast for all time in the manner of his people: since that day had ended their hunger and error. And because they remembered that they had been driven out of Egypt for fear of contagion, they took care, lest they be odious to the inhabitants for the same cause, not to communicate with foreigners; which, done for this reason, gradually converted into a discipline and religion. What this Justin relates about vitiligo, some other pagan writers also relate. Ptolemy Hephaestion, book V of the *New History*, according to Photius in the *Bibliotheca*: and Helladius the Byzantine in the *Chrestomathia*: And he uses Philo as a witness for his statement. Which, however, David Heschelius in his *Annotations* on Photius observed is read neither in the three books of Philo's *De vita Moysis*, nor elsewhere. But I would not doubt in the least that Helladius used as a witness a different person than Philo the Jew whose writings still exist; and perhaps the one who wrote about Jerusalem in heroic verse, whom Alexander Polyhistor also praises in Eusebius, *De praeparatione* lib. IX, or even the biblical Philo.

^A historical one, which I consider more likely. But sacred Scripture refutes the fables and trifles of the Gentiles, and reveals the truth of the matter.

Col. 780, lin. 44: *And many*. Josephus writes in *Antiquities*, book II, ch. 5, that Moses did not take a foreign nurse, but a native one; Ezechiel, Philo, and Clement of Alexandria hold similar views.

Ibid., lin. 51: *Having become a man*. Clement of Alexandria speaks thus of the name of Moses and its primary root: "Then the queen gives the child the name Moses, etymologically, because he was taken out of the water. For the Egyptians call water *mou*, into which he was exposed to die. And indeed, they call the one who breathed his last in the water *Mouses*." Ezechiel says: "She named him Moses, because she drew him from the marshy river's bank." Philo, *On the Life of Moses*: "Then she gives a name, bestowing it as Moses, etymologically, because he was taken from the water. For the Egyptians call water *mōs*." Josephus, *Antiquities*, book II: "And she set this name upon him in accordance with the fact that he had fallen into the river. For the Egyptians call water *mō*, and those saved from the water *usēs*. Therefore, combining both, they give him this naming." Procopius, Rabanus, and others report the same rationale for the imposition of this name. Cornelius a Lapide affirms that this name is not Egyptian, but Hebrew, and brings forward another cause for the name from the Hebrew root of names.

Ibid., lin. 55: *She called*. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, book I, says differently: "It is clear, then, that in the previous time, when the child was circumcised, his parents gave him a name; he was called Joachim. And he also had a third name in heaven after his assumption, as the initiates say, Melchi."

^B Ibid., lin. 56: *And he was fair*. Philo: "He was seen to be noble and fair. And having seen that he was more perfect than his age, and having been drawn [to him] by his appearance even more than before, she makes him her son through her affection, having first contrived matters concerning the swelling of her belly, so that he might be considered legitimate and not a supposititious child. God makes easy all things which He wills, even those difficult to accomplish." Artapanus, in Eusebius *De praeparatione* lib. IX, expressed his qualities and features thus: "He says that Moses was tall, with light hair, white-haired, long-haired, and possessed of a dignified air."

Col. 781, lin. 1: *She brings him*. These same things are read in almost the same words in Josephus, *Antiquities*, book II, ch. 5, which see.

Ibid., lin. 25: *The Ethiopians, however...* Regarding this Mosaic expedition against the Ethiopians, besides Josephus, Artapanus says: "And once, when the Ethiopians marched against Egypt, Chenephres, thinking that he had found a suitable opportunity, sent Moses against them as a general with a force. He [intended] to assemble a multitude of his kinsmen, thinking that he would easily be slain by the enemies because of the soldiers' weakness. But Moses, having come to the district called Hermopolitan, which had about one hundred thousand laborers, went to war there. He sent out the generals who were stationed over the region, whom they were to outmatch notably in the battles. He says [the war] lasted ten years."

Ibid., lin. 53: *How he [would be] general*. All historians have confirmed with many examples that someone is often sent far away by those who fear them, under the pretense of honor; Janus Gruterus has gathered a large number of these in the second part of his expanded commentaries on the notable passages of Tacitus, regarding that [passage] in book XI of the *Annals*: "He decided to remove the youth under the pretense of honor."

^C Ibid., lin. 46: *Woven baskets*. Josephus narrates this whole ruse of Moses thus: "There he made a wonderful display of his own wisdom. For the land being difficult to traverse because of a multitude of reptiles (for it is most teeming, so that it feeds alone those that do not exist elsewhere, and they are superior in strength and in the malice of an unfamiliar appearance. Some of them are even winged, so that they hurt those who do not foresee it by coming from the earth and being over-flying), he conceives for the safety and harmless passage of the army an amazing stratagem. For he constructed baskets similar to chests out of papyrus, and having filled them with ibises, he brought them along. This animal is most hostile to these [reptiles]. For they flee when they approach, and, standing off, they are devoured just like those being snatched up by deer. The ibises are easy to tame, and are wild only toward the genus of snakes. And I pass over writing about these things now, the Greeks not being ignorant of the form of the ibis. So when he entered the animal-nurturing land, he fought against the nature of the reptiles with these, letting them loose upon them, and using them as those fighting in the front rank. Having traveled this way, he was not even noticed by the Ethiopians; and having engaged them, he prevails in the battle, and is deprived of the hopes which they had regarding the Egyptians; their cities were also overrun and destroyed, and a great slaughter of the Ethiopians was made. And the Egyptian army, having tasted of the success through Moses, did not weary, so that the danger for the Ethiopians was about enslavement and total ruin." Artapanus also mentions: "Therefore those around Moses, because of the size of the army, built a city in this place, and consecrated the ibis in it, because it destroys those things that harm men; and they named it the city of Hermes." Hence this bird is sacred to the Egyptians. Herodotus. But regarding this, some things [were said] above.

Ibid., lin. 56: *For he was...*. All these things are held more fully in Josephus, who does not pass over in silence even Queen Tharmis's lost love for Moses, from which the Greek myth-makers seem to have borrowed what they tell about Scylla and others.

Col. 784, lin. 15: *Thus indeed...*. Strabo, book XVI, indicates what Moses taught the Egyptians: "Those who attributed to God the images of beasts and cattle did not think rightly, as did the Africans and the Greeks who would attribute to the gods the form of men. But that truly is God alone, which contains us, and the earth, and the sea; which [we call]...

sky, and the world, and the nature of all things, the likeness ^A of which certainly no one of sound mind would dare to fashion into any of those things which belong to us. Wherefore, every fabrication of images being rejected, a temple and shrine worthy of Him must be established, and He must be worshipped without any figure. To those who live chastely and justly, good dreams are offered; it is fitting, therefore, that they should sleep in the temple for themselves and for others, and look for some good thing and revelation from God from time to time, while from the others nothing is to be hoped.

Col. 784, line 18. The words are Artapanus; they have embraced this mode of circumcision in such a way that, even after ^B having received Christianity, they retain their foreskins to this very day; that they do this from the ancient custom of that people without the superstition of Judaism is testified by Josephus Scaliger, lib. VII *De emend. temp.*, p. 640. Is it on account of this that they are also immune from the superstition of gentilism? Scaliger.

Ibid., line 22. What Eustathius attributes to Moses regarding the division of Egypt, he seems to attribute to Josephus, Alexander Polyhistor, or Artapanus. Agatharcides, in Photius’ *Bibliotheca*, numbers the prefectures of Egypt from Memphis to the Thebaid; Strabo, book XVII, writes that Egypt was first divided into prefectures, the Thebaid into ten, that which is in the Delta into another ten, and the Intermediate into sixteen. For there were as many prefectures of this kind ^C as there were halls of the labyrinth, which were about thirty. Again, the prefectures were divided into toparchies, and the toparchies into other portions, the smallest of which were the fields; and the Egyptians used this precise and minute division on account of the continuous confusions of boundaries, on account of the increase of the Nile, which, having swollen, added to some and took away from others, changing everything with the changing face of things, with figures and markers buried. Regarding these prefectures, see Diodorus, Pliny, and others.

Ibid., line 29. Alexander Polyhistor apud Eusebium: Eupolemus says that Moses was the first wise man, and first delivered letters to the Jews; and that the Phoenicians received them from the Jews, and the Greeks from the Phoenicians; and that Moses was the first to write laws for the Jews. Eupolemus, in [the work] *On the Jews*... he says that Moses was the first to deliver [them] to the Jews, and that the Phoenicians received [them] from the Jews; and the Greeks from the Phoenicians. Hesiod was [from the time] of the twelve patriarchs, ^D who translated Assyrian letters into the Greek language.

But John of Antioch does not agree with this in his *Archaeologia*: "Hesiod was [from the time] of the twelve patriarchs, who translated the Assyrian letters into the Greek language." That, however, letters were first delivered to the Jews by Moses is not approved by Augustine, lib. XVIII *De civitate Dei*, chap. 39; for he thinks that letters, just like speech, existed before Moses, and his opinion is sufficiently confirmed by those things which we have adduced above from Josephus, *De antiquit.*, lib. 1, concerning the columns, one of stone and the other of brick, in which the grandsons of Seth, before that flood of the whole world, left the knowledge of celestial things, which had been discovered by them, inscribed and consigned to letters. Likewise, the opinion of Philo must be exploded, who refers the invention of Hebrew letters to Abraham.

Ibid., line 35. Some recount that after the victory, Moses wished to return to Egypt, but Tharbis would not let him go; and that he, as one who was most skilled in the stars, carved two images on gems of such virtue and power that one would bring memory and the other forgetfulness, and when he had set them in matching rings, he specifically kept the one of memory for himself, and gave the one of forgetfulness to Tharbis. When she put it on, she soon forgot Moses; and thus he was able to return to Egypt. But these are trifles.

Ibid., line 36. *And Senefres.* Artapanus: ...even Renephes, when the war was ended, accepted him with words, but in deed plotted against him. Having therefore taken away his crowds, he sent some to the borders of Ethiopia for the sake of an outpost, and ordered others to demolish the temple constructed of baked brick in Heliopolis; and to construct another of stone, having quarried the nearby mountain; and he appointed Nacherotes as inspector of the construction.

*And to the people.* And he, having come with Moses to Memphis, asked him if there was anything else useful to men. And he said that the race of oxen [was useful], because the land is plowed by them. And Renephes, having proclaimed the bull Apis, ordered the crowds to build a temple for him, and ordered them to bury the animals consecrated by Moses there, wishing to hide Moses' inventions.

*And the crowd.* And having alienated... The Egyptians having alienated him, he made his friends swear not to report the conspiracy being formed against him to Moses, and he set up those who would kill him. When no one obeyed, he reproached Renephes Chananethen, the one most highly addressed by him. And he, having been reproached, promised the attack, having taken an opportunity.

*Then also of.* And at this time, Merris having died,

Chenephres promised both to Moses and to Chanenoth the body, so that, having carried it to the places beyond Egypt, they might bury it, concluding that Moses would be killed by Chanenoth. As they were departing, someone announced the plot to Moses. He, guarding himself, buried Merris, and named the river and the city in it Meroe. This Meroe is honored by the inhabitants no less than Isis. For indeed Meroe, being the metropolis of the Ethiopians, is for the other part an island made triangular by the rivers, being flowed around by the Nile, the Astaboras, and the Asasobas, the Nile falling in at the top and splitting toward both sides, while regarding the other two, they pass by on either flank, and falling together again, into one, the Nile, they vanquish both the current and the name.

[Ar]on the brother of Moses, having learned of the plot, advised his brother to flee to Arabia. He, having been persuaded, having sailed down the Nile from Memphis, departed to Arabia. But Chanethothes, having learned of the flight of Moses, lay in ambush to kill him. Seeing him coming, he drew his sword against him. But Moses, having anticipated him, held his hand, and having drawn the sword, killed Chanethothes. He fled into Arabia and lived with Raguel, the ruler of those places, having taken his daughter.

^B At any rate, concerning such a thing, Artapanus in his treatise concerning the Jews records that Moses was shut into prison by Nechephres, the king of the Egyptians, because he refused to let the people be released from Egypt, and that by night, the prison having been opened according to the will of God, he went out and, having entered the palace, stood before the sleeping king and awakened him. The king, struck with fear at what had happened, ordered Moses to speak the name of the God who had sent him. And he, having leaned toward his ear, spoke it; and the king, having heard it, fell speechless, though having been held up by Moses, he came back to life.

Endymion, through mystic prayers, wished to learn the name of God from the moon, and having learned it in a dream, he died. But the myth says he was loved by the moon. —Innate, unpronounceable, *pipi*, tetragrammaton, unpronounceable, ineffable silence, Father, truth, silence, the silence, silence. ^C

For the first of all. At the same time, Chenephres, first of all men, became afflicted with elephantiasis and passed away. He fell into this disease because he ordered the Jews to wear linen garments, while he forbade them to wear wool, so that they might be conspicuous and punished by him.

^D With that disease, as Cornelius Celsus and others report, the whole body is affected so that the bones also are said to be corrupted; the upper part of the body has frequent spots and frequent swellings. The redness of these gradually turns into a black color, the surface of the skin is unevenly thick, thin, hard, and soft, as if roughened by certain scales; the body emaciates, the face, calves, and feet swell, etc. Q. Serenus Sammonicus:

*The elephant disease is sad and also dire in name,* *Not only defiling the countenance with unspeakable eruptions,* *But soon precipitating deadly fates with baleful poison.*

Isidorus, book IV, chapter 8, gives the reason for the name: The disease is called *elephantiasis* from the similarity of the elephant: whose skin is naturally hard and rough — a disease on men, because it makes the surface of the body similar to the skin of elephants; or because it is a huge passion, like the animal itself, from which it derives its name. Celsus, lib. III, cap. 25, says that this disease, almost unknown in Italy, is very frequent in certain regions. Lucretius, lib. VI, *De rerum natur.*, says it afflicts only Egypt, and no other region anywhere:

*The elephant disease, which on account of the rivers of the Nile* *Is born in the midst of Egypt, and nowhere else.*

Plinius, lib. XXIX, cap. 1, writes that this evil is peculiar to Egypt, but that it has wandered also into Italy; see.

Ibid., line 36. Artapanus apud Eusebium. Clemens Alexandrinus from the same:

This same also became known to the Greeks under the coverings of fables, says Joannes Antiochenus in his *Archaeologia*. The name of God is Ioth, he, vau, he, which the ancients said was ineffable. Whether they could not utter it, or whether they abstained from uttering it out of a certain religion, all the ancient interpreters have diligently preserved, reading for it something else; and the Greeks of old, because what was written in Hebrew characters was *Ioth, he, vau, he*, read it *pipi* on account of its similarity, which, however, Hieronymus does not approve, *epistol. 136*: The name of the tetragrammaton, which indeed is ineffable, they have thought to be what is written with these letters, *Iod, he, vau, he*: which some, not understanding, on account of the similarity of the elements, when they found them in Greek books, became accustomed to read *pipi*. But since the discourse is concerning the ineffable name, we must also endeavor, if we have anything on behalf of Irenaeus, lib. 1 *adversus haeres.*, cap. 12, for he has it thus: "The total number of this quaternation is twenty-four letters; for the name has seven, five, five, [and] ... in itself, which composed together... have fulfilled the number XXIV; for Irenaeus seems to be mistaken, or that name ought to be increased by one letter, from which the Greek of Epiphanius does not dissent. Some are stuck, nor do they see what they should do about that; they doubt whether an article is to be added so that it may be, or rather a name from the infinite; as it does not satisfy them, so neither does it me; the article from the name...

Ibid., line 25. Artapanus:

is sufficiently known to everyone. Furthermore, when there are four nouns that are uttered, why is the article to be prefixed only to *sigē* [silence], and not to the others? Nor will the noun ever be from the infinite, even if we establish the infinite from the verb *sigōn* [to be silent]; which is also something other than the noun *sigē* if it were correctly considered, for it has six letters in itself, and not five, for it has an iota subscript. And it is absurd, indeed impious, to confess that Irenaeus fell into error in such a trivial matter; wherefore I think he wrote *siōpē*, for thus both the number of letters remains consistent, and we do not betray a sense different from the opinion. So it is pleasing to opine and write, until someone [finds] better things.

Col. 785, line 53. Artapanus: ^A And some, but it does not suit me to grasp this discourse now. For I also exhort others not to pry into the causes of the divine economy, but to marvel at what happens and to praise the Creator. And Aristides, a most prudent and skilled orator, in his Egyptian discourse, attributes it to the great wisdom and providence of God, who, into a place where He was to send no rain, introduced the Nile as if it were His own vicar, to provide for the inhabitants of that region in place of rain, and to confer this gift upon men at that time when it was most opportune for them, and not less than necessary for the region; but rather, it procures a remarkably copious yield. And he says that he sees this as the sole reason why the Nile flows through Egypt, and is greatest in summer. Wherefore, rightly and deservedly, Martial called it "rain-bearing," Epigram lib. 1, epigr. 62, verse 5: "Apollodorus applauds the rain-bearing Nile," because for the Egyptians it takes the place of celestial showers and rains, when it fertilizes the whole of Egypt with its annual inundation; and from below provides the benefits of waters. Philo, *De Vita Moysis*: Perhaps it was also superfluous for winter to occur in Egypt; for to this the falls of rain are useful, and the river stagnating the fields for the generation of annual crops. ^B And nature is not a worker of vanity, so as to supply rain to land that has no need of it, and at the same time it delights in the varied and multifaceted nature of scientific works, having harmonized the consonance of the whole from contraries, and for this reason, ^C for some from above out of heaven, and for others from below out of springs and rivers, it provides the benefit of water. For the river in Egypt, with its yearly floods, when it irrigates the fields, what else is it but rain misting from below? And the [land of the] country not being rained upon, like others, but accustomed to being flooded every year by the inundations of the river, the Egyptians, in their discourse, mythologize the Nile as having been made a substitute for heaven, and speak grandly of the country.

Ibid., line 56. Artapanus: ^A ...and some say [regarding] the one who scorned what was written on the tablet, that he departed this life with a convulsion. *But Pharaoh.* And [he asked] the king to perform some sign. But Moses, having cast down the staff he held, made it a serpent. As all were panic-stricken, taking it by the tail, he picked it up, and again made it a staff. ^B Regarding this. But as the king was still foolish, Moses caused both hail and earthquakes throughout the night, so that those fleeing the earthquake were destroyed by the hail, and those avoiding the hail were destroyed by the earthquakes. And at that time all the houses and most of the temples collapsed.

The Exodus

it is winter, from which the overflowing water bursts forth. This was also the opinion of Plutarch, *Regarding Isis and Osiris*. Martialis, perhaps having this opinion in mind when he wrote these things, called the Nile "rain-bringing," not because it is in the place of rainfalls and downpours, but because it draws rains and the showers by which it swells and pours forth beyond its banks, and covering Egypt as if with a certain sea, it brings fertility by its arrival. Concerning the increase and decrease of the Nile, and its causes: Plutarch, *On the Opinions of the Philosophers*, book IV, chapter 1; Diodorus Siculus, book I of his *Bibliotheca Historica*; Aristides, in his *Egyptian Oration*; Strabo, book XVII; Joannes Xiphilinus in his Epitome of Dio; Heliodorus, *Aethiopica* book II; Theodoret, *On the Cure of Greek Diseases*, book I; Herodotus, book II; Theophylactus Simocatus, *History* book VII, chapter 17, who wrote all of his own work almost word-for-word from Diodorus Siculus, that good man, without even naming him; Seneca, Joannes Leo, and many others.

Col. 788, line 10. *Artapanus*: Once this had come to pass, he bade the king call those beyond Memphis, and to say that he would destroy them and raze the temples, unless they too performed wonders. Those men then, by means of certain sorceries and incantations, created a serpent and transformed the river. The king, however, having become prudent ^A regarding what had happened, tormented the Jews with every punishment and chastisement. But Moses, seeing these things, performed other signs; and having struck the earth with his staff, he released a winged creature, which harmed the Egyptians, and their bodies were dragged out. Since the physicians were unable to heal the sufferers, thus the Jews in turn obtained relief. ^B This same man once desired—as he himself narrated to us—to enter the garden-tomb of Jannes and Jambres, the magicians at the time of Pharaoh, for the sake of history or an encounter with the demons there. For it was said that a great number of harsh demons were assigned by those very men to that place, because of the excess of their disgraceful art. This garden-tomb was made by Jannes and Jambres themselves, the brothers, as, by reason of their excessive magical skill, they held the preeminence at that time under Pharaoh, possessing much power in Egypt during their lifetime. They built that work out of quadrated stones, having made a tomb within it, and having put away much gold. They also planted trees of every kind, and dug a well of water. They did all these things hoping, after their arrival ^C from there to here, to enjoy pleasures in this paradise. The saint said that because I approached the garden-tomb, from it there came out to meet me seventy demons in every kind of shape, some crying out, others leaping, others gnashing their teeth against me with a great roar; others, fluttering like crows, dared to say things against my face. Entering then, he says, I beheld everything, in which I found also a bronze bucket hanging by an iron chain down the well, consumed by time, and fruit of pomegranates, having nothing inside; for they had been dried up by the sun.

Line 25. *Artapanus*: Lastly, the king, having fallen into such calamities, released the Jews. And having borrowed many cups from the Egyptians, and no small amount of clothing, and other abundant wealth, they crossed the rivers in Arabia, and having traversed a considerable space, they arrived at the Red Sea on the third day.

Line 33. Let no one ^D require a deeper investigation; wherefore I forgo bringing forth more here. See the expositions which Origen brings to this passage in the *Philocalia*, final chapter.

Line 37. *But let it be known*: That those things which are said about God in Scripture that seem dissonant ought to be understood in a harmonious sense, is proven extensively by Origen in his homily on that word of Jeremiah, "O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived," which, together with others, Michael Ghislerius has edited in his Commentaries on Jeremiah in Latin versions made by us.

Col. 789, line 8. *Artapanus*: The Gentiles attributed this crossing of the Hebrews through the sea on dry land not to a miracle, but to the ebb and flow of the sea. The Memphites said the same, with Artapanus as witness: This opinion of the Gentiles is refuted in many ways by Diodorus in the *Catena on Genesis*: Since the traces of the miracle that happened at that time are still manifested even now by the Red Sea ebbing, and providing a remembrance of the gift bestowed by God upon the Hebrews. The Greeks take the fact as a pretext for piety, pointing out ebbs in many places of the sea as a work of nature, not a divine miracle. We, having granted them that...

they might inquire if there is anywhere ^A a sea where the ebb cuts through the middle and forms a gulf, and this for a long distance, so as to bare the place hidden to them and make a wide path, or rather straight paths, which God provided for the Israelites according to the one who says in the Psalm: ^B "To him who divided the Red Sea into parts; and the sea water, having been cleft from the right and from the left, has the nature to stand like unbreaking walls," which happened for the Israelites as they used the sea-places as a path. But if they disbelieve that these things ever happened, why do they not put aside their piecemeal debating and ask us, using the truth as their teacher? Or rather, learning the truth from the things that are demonstrated. Is it possible for the Red Sea to ebb, retreating at one time and advancing at another? But in the case of the Israelites, it was not an ebb. For how could the cleft in the sea, and its freezing into the stance of walls, be an ebb? ^{C D}

LEONE ALLATI ON THE AFORESAID

...the Hebrews. That one wishing to imitate this miracle in the time of the Emperor Theodosius would have been the ruin of many Hebrews, Socrates, *Hist. Eccl.*, lib. VII, cap. 38.

Col. 789, line 19. *And Raguel.* Regarding Raguel and his parents, Eusebius says more in *De praeparatione evang.*, lib. IX, from Ezekiel and Demetrius, who make Jothor and Raguel different people; for he relates that Abraham begat Jexan by Cethura, from whom was born Dadan, from whom came Raguel, the father of Jothor, whose daughter Moses took as his wife. The Hebrews, Lyranus, and Abulensis relate that Raguel had four names. For first he was called Raguel (Exod. II and III), then Jethro, that is "Adding," for he himself added one chapter to the Law, concerning the ordering of the people by tribunes, centurions, fifties, and decans (Exod. XVIII). He is called the Kenite (Judg. IV). Finally, he is called Hobab, that is "Loving," because he loved the law of God and was converted to Judaism, as in Exod. XVIII. Others more probably think that Hobab is not Raguel, but the son of Raguel, regarding whom see Num. X.

Ibid., line 20. *Bringing.* For Moses, as Epiphanius relates in *Haeres.* 78, practiced continence from his wife after he received the prophetic office, so that he might be pure to attend to such a holy function; which Genebrardus relates he later found in the same words in the Hebrew Traditions.

Ibid., line 30. *And Moses died.* Ambrose, in his book *De Cain et Abel*, c. 2, asserts that Moses was not yet dead, but translated to a better life; and when it is written that he died, it is understood not as the death that occurs through the separation of the soul from the body, but as a translation to a happy and blessed life. Hilary of Poitiers concurs with this in *Matthew*, can. 20. The same is related by the more recent Ambrose Catherinus on that passage in Gen. III: *He placed the cherubim before the paradise of pleasure.* And on that passage in Gen. II, 8: *The Lord had planted a paradise of Eden.* The Hebrews believe he was translated alive; wherefore Philo writes that his sepulchre cannot be found: *Concerning *the rites of Abel and Cain, I give you*, he says, *God of Pharaoh.* But God does not suffer lack or addition, being full and most equal to Himself. Whence it is said that not even one knows of his burial. For who would be capable of fully understanding the translation of the soul to existing things? The same is repeated at the end of the book *On the Life of Moses*, and Rabbi Samuel Marrochianus in his book *On the Advent of the Messiah*, which the Jews rashly await, has these things in chapter 12: "Concerning Moses, doubt is not to be entertained, but that he is in heaven in body and soul, as Deut. XXXIV says: *God said to Moses: Ascend into the mountain and die there; and he ascended into the mountain, and died there; and no man knew his sepulchre until this day.* And what does it signify that his sepulchre is unknown on earth, although he was a greater prophet and holier than others, unless that God resurrected him, and took him up in body and soul, just as He took up other just men, and raised him to the place where they are?"

Ibid., line 32. *And he leads out.* Artapanus relates that the Hebrews wandered in the desert for thirty years... [alt-version omitted]

with God raining down upon them manna like millet, similar in color to snow. ^A Col. 789, line 34. *For grace.* Gregory of Nyssa, in the *Life of St. Macrina the Virgin*, remembers the ancient custom of traveling for the sake of religion: "But you do not forget the meeting, when, in accordance with a prayer to go to Jerusalem, you traveled so that you might see the signs of the Lord’s sojourn in the flesh in the types at the city of Antioch."

Ibid., line 37. *Mount Sinai.* Concerning Mount Sinai and its holy places, Peter Belon writes much in the second book of his *Observations*, chapter 62 and following. Concerning this mountain, which is indeed distinguished by the dialogues of God with Moses, and by holy and sacred places flourishing to this day, as well as by the body of noble Saint Catherine, there is much in the Holy Scriptures. It rises with two peaks divided by solid rock, and with granules of various colors which form different shapes; the higher part occupies the name of Sinai, the lower, Horeb. In Horeb the law was given to Moses, in which, even now, the image of Moses is seen impressed upon a marble stone to perfection. In Sinai, the body of Saint Catherine was brought by angels, a thing which, in the passage of time, the monks who inhabit the mountain moved to the lower part of Mount Horeb in order to keep it safe from enemies. There are many things on this mountain that are indeed wonderful and most worthy of note. I communicate these things to you, reader, by a sketch of the mountain which I once received from the monks who came from there to Rome, and by the testimony of others who have visited those places, which I strongly trust; I have set out at the end how the places are named in these times.

Ibid., line 57. A gross error of Alexander Polyhistor, who says that among the Hebrews there was a certain woman who wrote the law which the Jews use, that is, that the Mosaic law of the Jews was not from Moses—whom no one, not even the lowliest of the common people, if he knew the Jews, could have been ignorant of—but was dictated by this woman.

Ibid., line 40. *One must inquire.* On this controversy and the calculation of the years, Pererius writes most learnedly in chapter XV of Genesis, in which, by examining the remaining opinions of others as false and little suited to explaining the difficulty of that passage, he refutes them and defends the opinion of our author as legitimate and true, by solid arguments and the adduced authorities of the holy Fathers. See also Genebrard and Delrio on chapter XV of Genesis.

Col. 792, line 3. *Through the Jordan.* Cornelius a Lapide, in chapter XIV of Exodus, reports the division of the Red Sea in four ways, different from this division of the waters of the Jordan: first, in that the division of the sea was made by Moses extending his rod into it; but the division of the Jordan was made by the presence of the Ark of the Lord; second, in the sea, the divided waters stood on either side like walls; but in the Jordan, the lower part flowed down into the Dead Sea, ^B and the superior part stood still and swelled, constantly flowing with waters; but when the Hebrews had crossed, it did not subside suddenly, but gradually, and flowed away so as not to overwhelm the banks and fields; third, in the sea, the Egyptians were drowned, but no one was drowned in the Jordan; fourth, in the sea, God sent a wind to dry up the muddy bottom, but he did not do this in the Jordan because its bed is small and sandy.

Ibid., line 7. *To Jericho.* Josephus, *Antiquities*, book IV, chapter 5: "And this city is fortunate, being good for bearing palms and producing balsam." You have its topography in the same *Jewish War*, book V, chapter 26; and the monk Brocardus in *Description of the Holy Land*: "Also from Galgala, at a distance of one league towards the east, is situated Jericho, a city once famous, but now it has eight houses, having scarcely obtained the title of a village."

Ibid., line 14. *And all the multitude unto the Lord.* Josephus, *Antiquities*, book V, chapter 1: "And an infinite multitude is gathered from the plunder, both of silver and gold, and furthermore of bronze, with no one transgressing the decrees or embezzling them for private gain. And these things Joshua hands over to the priests to be deposited in the treasuries." ^C

Ibid., line 15. *The city of Ovat.* Josephus pursues all these things at length, *Antiquities*, in the place mentioned.

Ibid., line 21. *But the Gibeonites.* Josephus has the same, yet he narrates these things more extensively.

Ibid., line 40. *Being angered.* Josephus has the same in the place mentioned.

Ibid., line 52. *And there also.* Josephus: "Where also he learned the cooperation of God, when He persisted with thunder and the casting of lightning bolts, and a downpour of hail greater than usual. Moreover, indeed, the day was increased even more, so that night, not having overtaken them, did not happen to hinder the zeal of the Hebrews. So that Joshua also takes the kings hiding in a certain cave near Makkedah and punishes them all. That the length of the day increased then and exceeded the usual is shown by the writings laid up in the temple."

Ibid., line 54. *Having made the sun stand.* Johannes Kepler, in the introduction to his *New Astronomy*, in order to prove that the earth moves and the sun stands still, says that every day we speak many things according to the sense of the eyes, which we know for certain to be otherwise; and that this manner of speaking is familiar also to Christ and to Divine Scripture; for they speak with men in the human manner, so that they may be understood by men, and they use those things which are in common confession among men to insinuate other more sublime and divine matters, and he attempts to demonstrate this by examples of Holy Scripture; among them, he explains this passage in such a way that everyone understands it to be rather the opposite; for he concludes that the earth stood still then, by which it was being moved with perpetual motion, and not the sun. His words are: "But ^D God easily understood from the words of Joshua what he wanted: and He granted, by inhibiting the motion of the earth, that the sun should appear to him to stand still. For the sum of Joshua’s petition returned to this, that it could thus appear to him so."

^A what it might be in the meantime; for this did not appear empty or without result, but was joined with the desired effect. The interpretation of divine scriptures is indeed harsh and distorted; although we know that they very often, after the manner of men, set forth many things which we discover by sure fact to be otherwise, yet the meaning is always firm, we set forth the modes of figures and schemes, and thus we acknowledge it to be conformed to things, but who of sound mind would dare to twist it to the contrary sense? The sun stands, that is, the earth stands, who would believe this? The most sound exposition of the holy Fathers is always that which, as in this, so in other matters we embrace with the highest veneration.

Col. 794, lin. 7. 'Aσὼρ δὲ ὁ βα. Concerning all these things, see Josephus in the stated place; concerning the division of the land of Canaan, all things are read distinctly in the Holy Scriptures.

^B Ibid., lin. 43. Τ' Αστράτη. Astarte; Tertullian notes that she was a most ancient divinity of Syria, Apologet. cap. 24: "To every province and city also there is its own god, just as to Syria there are the Astartes." Artemidorus, Oneirocrit. lib. 1, cap. 9: "All eat fish except some Syrians, those who worship Astarte." It is certain from Plutarch that the Syrians worshipped the Syrian goddess, and since she was believed to be her daughter, it is nothing strange that the Syrians worshipped her. Others assign her to the Phoenicians and Sidonians. Achilles Tatius, beginning of lib. 1: "Having arrived here from much storm, Sostratus, I was sacrificing to the goddess of the Phoenicians; they call her Astarte, the Sidonians." Suidas: "Astarte, who among the Greeks is called Aphrodite, the goddess of the Sidonians." Joannes Xiphilinus in his oration *On the Adoration of the Cross*: "And worshipping Astarte, and Chemosh, which is the abomination of the Sidonians." Augustine asserts that in the Punic language, which sprang from Hebrew, she is called Juno without doubt, lib. vII, quaest. 16. There were many Junos among the ancients, just as there were Jupiters and Venuses, and from this it came about that the fourth Venus was called by the Syrians Astarte, or Astareth, the daughter of Syria and Tyre, as Cicero says, lib. III *De nat. deor.* By some she was believed to be the Moon or Diana. There are those who think that she is the one who is spoken of in Holy Scripture, and especially in Judg. x, 6, as Astaroth, and where in IV Reg. xxIII, 13 it is read: "Which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Astaroth the idol of the Sidonians," the Septuagint translate, "which Solomon the king of Israel built for Astarte," for thus they think it should be read, not *Asalth*. And, I Reg. xxxi, 10: "And they placed his armor in the temple of Astharoth." The Septuagint: "And they placed his vessels into the Astarteion," where the Scholium says: "into the temple of Astarte." The Phoenician word *greges* sounds like *mua*, and among the Hebrews they are produced with the same voice, *greges* and *Astaroth*; wherefore David Kimchi and Marinus Brixianus suspect that the idol was in the shape of a sheep, as Johannes Pineda reports, lib. vII *De rebus Salom.*, c. 11, num. 2. They wish her to be called Derceto by the Greeks, the word being indeed distorted from the Syrian *Adardaga*, by which they signified a fish. Wherefore Laurentius Ramiresius in *Pentecontarcho*, cap. 21, corrects Macrobius, lib. 1, cap. 21, "Among whom the Venus Architis, and Adonis especially, etc." From Pliny, lib. vi *Nat. hist.*, c. 23, the Syrians [have] Magog, ^A where the prodigious Adargatis [Ramiresius corrects it to Adargatis] but she is worshipped as Derceto by the Greeks. And as he himself thinks, he heals the place of Petrus Crinitus, lib. xiv *De honesta discip.*, cap. 8, "The goddess of the Syrians is Adagartis," changing it into Adargatis. Which correction, however acute, seems indeed too superstitious. For thus all the texts of the ancients would have to be inverted, that we might correct one or another, when nevertheless no necessity urges it. For let us grant that among the Syrians *Adardaga* is called a fish, shall we therefore affirm that this goddess was so named, with no letter, no syllable changed? But be it so; shall we therefore be convicted that among the Greeks, or even the Romans themselves, she must be pronounced thus? The Greeks and Romans soften hard and harsh words, and reduce that barbarian [speech] to better fruit, and clothe it, as they themselves are of the most polished manners, with garments—namely, by accent, sound, pronunciation, and numbers. What wonder if the Syrians' *Adardaga* departed into *Atargatim*, especially with Pliny writing thus in the mentioned place, and before him Strabo lib. xvi, from whom Pliny had his material: "Above the river lies Bambyce, four schoeni away, which they also call Edessa and the Holy City, in which they honor the Syrian goddess Atargatis," nor by an unlike reason do they themselves deflect the name from the Syriac; for from *Adardaga* they make *Atargatim*, with better sound and formation. Nor for any other reason did Crinitus, or others who are praised in that chapter, wish or could they have written, than is manifest from that alone, that they had the place of Strabo, which we wrote above, before their eyes while they were writing those things; for there *Atargatis* is read. Behold the singular testimony of Strabo concerning this mutation at the end of the said book: "And the transpositions of names, and especially of barbarian ones, are many, just as they called Darixem Darius, and Parzilim Parysatis, and Atargatin (I read *Atargatin*, or *Atergatin*, as he himself had written above, unless you wish *Atargatin*) [called] Athara, and Ctesias calls her Derceto." Astarte is also mentioned by Aelian, Cicero *De natur. deor.*, Tertullian in *Apolog.* cap. 24, Josephus *contra Appionem*, Eusebius *De praeparatione evangel.* lib. 1, cap. 2. Epiphanius, according to the opinion of others, brings forth that Melchisedech’s father was called Heraclas, but his mother Astaroth. ^D Ibid., lin. 45. 'Ὡς ἐπὶ πολύκατα. In misfortunes and calamities we take refuge to God and celestial aid, and this is solemn for all. Virgil, *Aeneid* lib. 1: "Meanwhile to the temple of not fair Pallas went The Iliad women with hair let loose, and were carrying the robe, Suppliant, sad, and having beaten their breasts with their palms." And lib. II: "Nor less to the temple, and to the highest citadels of Pallas Is carried the queen of mothers with a great crowd Carrying gifts, and alongside [her] comes Lavinia the virgin The cause of such great evil." Sallust in *Conjurat. Catilinae*: "To this the women, upon whom, because of the magnitude of the war, an unusual fear had come, afflict themselves, [stretching] suppliant hands to heaven ten-

to forgive, to show mercy to little children, to ask, to cast aside all pride and luxury, and to distrust themselves and their native land. Theophylactus Simocatta, *Hist.*, bk. I: "Therefore, as the day was declining, the turning-point was reached, and the fear was so great that even those who were mad for the races suddenly leaped toward sobriety, like children in a game of dice when the trainer arrives unexpectedly. Then, the curtain which was in front of the gymnasium for the equestrian contests—which used to be the signal for joy—was removed because of the unexpected danger. And it happened that all of them went to the sacred shrines, trembling at the thought of death." ^A I shall conclude these notes with a most beautiful sentiment of Lactantius, *bk. II, ch. 1*: "For then, most of all, the memory of men slips away, when they ought to be giving honor to the divine indulgence for His benefits. But if any serious necessity presses upon them, then they remember God: if the terror of war roars, if a pestilential power of diseases falls upon them, if a long drought denies food to the crops, if a fierce storm or hail descends, they fly to God, assistance is sought from God, and God is prayed to that He might bring help. If anyone is tossed about on the sea in a raging wind, he invokes Him; if anyone is afflicted by any force, he immediately implores Him; if anyone is brought to the extreme necessity of begging and asks for sustenance with prayers, he beseeches God alone and seeks the mercy of men through His divine and unique divinity. Therefore, they never remember God unless they are in trouble."

ANNO DOMINI CCCXXXVIII–LXXVIII.

TITUS BOSTRENSIS EPISCOPUS.

NOTITIA

(Galland., *Bibliotheca vet. Patr.*, vol. V, p. xxvi, and p. 269.)

1. Titus governed the Church in Bostra, in Arabia, at the time when Julian was proclaimed emperor. When that apostate gained power over affairs, since he took care that the prelates of the Churches should be driven out of the cities, he also encouraged the Bostrenes with wicked arts so that they would expel Bishop Titus as an informer against the citizens, with the herald shouting. Sozomen recounts the matter (a), and Baronius discusses it (b). There exists even now this letter of Julian inscribed to the Bostrenes (c), in which he reports certain words which our Bostrenian prelate had used in a petition sent to Julian himself, from which the emperor later constructed a calumny against him. Furthermore, with Julian dead, he betook himself to the Antiochene synod in the year 363, convened by Meletius, to whose synodical letter, presented to the Emperor Jovian, he also subscribed; and his name appears among the subscriptions of other ^C bishops in Socrates (d). He died, however, under Valens, says Jerome (e); that is, at least before the year 378. Regarding the title of "Saint," by which, along with Irenaeus of Lyons, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others of ^B such Fathers, our bishop is honored in a chain of commentaries on Luke of venerable antiquity, you may consult Combetis if you like (f). Nor is he called otherwise in the Damascene *Parallels* (g).

II. Titus of Bostra is held in very high regard for his doctrine. Jerome places him among those Fathers (h) who fill their books with the teachings and opinions of philosophers to such an extent that you would not know what to admire in them first: their knowledge of secular learning or their knowledge of the Scriptures. And Sozomen indeed reports (i) that in that age many very learned and eloquent men flourished in the Churches; but he proclaims Titus of Bostra as the most distinguished of all. This most learned Father wrote a brilliant work against the Manichaeans after the death of Julian and perhaps during the reign of Jovian, or at least at the beginning of the reign of Valens, as is evident from those things which the author himself records in these words (j): "Even if," he says, "cities fall to ruin, as happened LATELY, when that most impious one (the apostate) was ruling, as indeed happened FORMERLY under the one who was exceedingly wicked," ^C